It was good to see the BPI responding to my recent post about file sharing, but less pleasing to read what they actually had to say, writes Neil Perry.
The response to the claim that the industry saw the internet as a threat rather than a money-making opportunity was "in order to create a sustainable business, you first need time and money." Oh, come on ... the music industry has had since the mid 90s to think up ways of running a sustainable business online! It has failed, miserably. Yet the 340 BPI member record companies are apparently "very aware of the positive potential of the internet".
Well, that's just peachy. Don't forget to let us know your plans. Is it any wonder other people stepped in to fill the gap? As for money, this isn't a commodity in short supply in the music industry.
This gloomy appraisal of the industry's reaction to the internet comes from a former senior executive at Island Records, Hooman Majd: "Everybody was running scared. Their reaction to technology was one of abject fear ... technology was offering them a shot at creating a direct one-to-one relationship with the customer. They missed that chance, though, and now it's gone forever."
And this is from Sam Shentob of the Association of Independent Music: "Undoubtedly the industry's biggest mistake was to think of digital music solely as a threat rather than an opportunity. Many independent labels saw it and were already negotiating with file sharing networks like Napster to introduce licensing, but in the end it seemed like egos were getting in the way, with certain high ranking individuals determined to crush the online trade at any cost."
I think this last quote gets to the crux of what I and many music fans feel about this whole issue: yes, of course the music companies will try to protect their intellectual property, we understand that, but sorry, no, we don't feel bad about downloading music because you blew it - big time.
As for the BPI's assertion that "illegal file sharing clearly has an overall negative effect on music purchasing", Virgin's Simon Dornan disagrees: "We've found that downloading and file sharing are actually encouraging people to buy more albums than ever before … it's actually raising more interest in music so it's good news for everyone."
Back to the BPI: "Our requirement is modest - that internet users stick to legal services to get music and don't illegally distribute our members' music over the internet."
Music fans' requirement is modest, also: that the music industry gets its act together and gives serious music lovers a way to purchase any music they want online. At present, the "30 legal UK digital music services" just don't cut it. The iTunes model has potential - personally I feel that 79p for a song is a reasonable price - and I would willingly pay more often, if only the music I was looking for was available in the first place. iTunes is woefully inadequate; as someone pointed out in a reply to the original blog, the Beatles - arguably the most famous pop band on the planet - are represented by a grand total of two songs.
Culture Vulture reader Dave Johnson expanded on this theme: "The choice is abysmal - a million-odd tracks is a small fraction of the material currently in publication worldwide … it is time that the industry recognised that the true attraction of p2p is not necessarily that the service is free but that it makes the music available to all."
Quite.
