Comment: why music fans won’t be vilified by oncoming piracy measures

The Australian media was rife with rumours last week that in coming days the Attorney General’s office will announce its strategy for combatting online piracy.

Coincidentally it was also revealed on Friday, almost four years since the Digital Economy Act (DEA) received Royal Ascent in the UK, that British ISPs will engage in a letter sending campaign, “educating” those accused of continued file-sharing.

This, the final outcome from the DEA, serves to prove that it was a largely ineffective piece of legislation which failed to accomplish its original aims.

TMN believes, contrary to scaremongering from certain quarters of the Australian media, that it is extremely unlikely that Brandis’ office – off the back of the recent Australian Law Reform Commission into Copyright – will introduce a ‘three-strikes’ policy, or any form of legislation which will deny access to the internet to consumers known to be file-sharing.

Brandis’ office will have looked at the progress of the DEA in the UK and will be looking to implement a more tactical approach to piracy. The DEA created a legal framework to support the creation of a ‘code of obligations’ between ISPs and rightsholders: the potential to roll out warning notifications; a system for site-blocking; and a legal acknowledgement that those infringing copyright would be wrapped over the knuckles. The DEA failed. It was too expensive – rightsholders were asked to pay set-up costs of a reported $25m (or more) and elements of the Act were later repealed.

It is only now, in 2014, that the UK has anything close to an effective piracy strategy: the aforementioned letter-sending campaign and site blocking measures which came about through clever use of Britain’s pre-existing copyright laws in 2013. Site blocking to-date has been largely successful, targeting those who seek to profit (more often from advertising) through the dissemination of illegal content.

It’s interesting to note that the DEA became law on the same day a general election was called, so the eyes of the media were largely focused elsewhere. Introducing controversial legislation can be concealed by larger stories, so if Brandis wishes to slip something past the ISPs (and “angry, from the internet” tech bloggers), tomorrow’s budget day might prove an opportunity too good to miss. Perhaps this is why the rumour mill went into overdrive last week.

What is more probable is that copyright law will be reformed here, possibly to introduce third party injunctions (site blocking), while updating secondary liability and safe harbour provisions. None of these vilify music fans.

It is concerning that in a market which is saturated with legal, safe and often free options to access music that Australia remains the highest piracy market per capita. Musicians deserve to be paid and the industry deserves to be underpinned by an economy which allows it to flourish.

For more on this, read Australian Music Rights’ Vanessa Hutley’s piece we published in March.