Filesharing: 4 questions ministers should answer before they proceed

By Tom Watson MP / @Tom_Watson

An intelligent, brutal analysis of the current consultation on UK filesharing from Mo over at Tumbled Logic (see “UK file sharers to be cut off -justification”. Those points are:

* Nobody actually knows how much illicit file-sharing goes on.

* The “7 million people” who apparently illegally download content – a figure used by the media industries to estimate resulting losses – has been thoroughly debunked and is almost completely a work of fiction.

* Nobody knows how much money is lost by rights-holders as a result of illicit file-sharing.

* Nobody knows how much money is made by rights-holders as a result of illicit file-sharing.

* Independent studies have consistently found that those who admit to illicit file-sharing spend more on legally-purchased content than those who don’t.

* Setting aside the moral imperatives, illicit file-sharing simply cannot itself cost rights-holders money: this only occurs where people download infringing content in preference to buying it.

* Anecdotal evidence suggests that plenty of people do, indeed, download content for free via BitTorrent and other sources that they would otherwise buy.

* Anecdotal evidence also suggests that plenty of people also download content which they either then effectively throw away (i.e., they sample it), or go on to purchase it.

* A certain proportion of illicit file-sharing is made up of people downloading content that they have free and easy access to anyway (i.e., TV programmes broadcast free-to-air in their country), and also content which they have no way of getting legitimate access to.

The points made in the piece convince me that officials leading on the legislative programme of Digital Britain should provide ministers far more detailed information before they decide how to proceed.

There are a number of questions that I think ministers should want to see answered by an objective, accurate study, ie not interest groups like the British Phonographic Industry.

This list is by no means exhaustive. If you do have any other ideas, please just let me know in the comments.

1. What will the plan, as proposed, do to earn more money than it will cost to implement?

2. How does anything suggested make it easier for new and innovative platforms set up online legally?

3. Why can’t it be as easy to license an internet service as it is to license a radio station?

4. How big a problem is P2P, and if we got rid of it would there be any extra money earned, or would all the activity find different outlets, as they have done to date?