Is the music industry at war?

Everyone from Lily Allen and Radiohead to Elton John and Billy Bragg have had something to say about filesharing recently. So who's right?

Members of the Featured Artists Coalition - Master Billy, of course, in the centre - show their support for ... well, no one is quite sure

Last year, at a conference for music creators, an independent artist – and the producer she runs a label with – both stood up to talk about the difficulties they had surviving in an environment where people got their music for free from illegal filesharing sites. Afterwards, I contacted her to ask if she'd be up for discussing the issue further in the behind the music blog. She replied: "I want to stay clear of talking too much about finances, as I think it's vulgar for artists to talk about money and business!" In other words, she was happy to talk about it, just not in public.

For years, illegal filesharing has been portrayed as an issue between the major labels and the music fans, with the odd quote from some mega-star. Naturally, most people would side with the "little man" as opposed to the big corporations. Meanwhile, artists were too weary of saying anything for fear of appearing regressive, greedy (vulgar?) or alienating fans.

This all changed last week after the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) released a statement opposing the government's proposal to temporarily disconnect repeat illegal filesharers as a last resort. It appeared to be saying illegal filesharing is fine, as artists can make up for the loss of revenues by touring and merchandising. Lily Allen struck back in a blog saying that illegal file-sharing is not okay, and that it will deprive new artists of the means to ever launch a career in music.

Having read the FAC statement in full, I realised that it wasn't quite as black-and-white as the media portrayed it to be. They did not approve of piracy and recognised that it often takes the hard work of people who don't tour to make a record. There are songwriters, producers, studio engineers and musicians who play on records, but don't get asked to go on tour as they may not have "the right look" (read: are too old) or are too expensive (not many bands can afford to bring a string section on tour).

Following Lily Allen's blog, musicians such as Björn Ulvaeus, James Blunt, Elton John and many more also began speaking out against filesharing, and suddenly we had what appeared to be an all-out war within the artist community.

But look closer, and you'll see that almost every artist weighing in on the debate (including the guy from Futureheads and Ed O'Brien from Radiohead, who are both on the FAC board) agrees that piracy is having a negative effect on emerging artists' ability to survive and continue to create music. Where they differ is in what to do about it.

I usually have strong opinions (an ex once sighed: "God, you have an opinion on everything"), but this issue is so complicated that there is no black and white, just different shades of grey.

Yes, supporting artist-friendly, legal services is a good start, and the music industry needs to grant them licenses to provide much more comprehensive music libraries. But, once they do, these services need to be able to compete on a level financial playing field. The reason We7 have come out in support of Allen's statement is that they find it difficult to compete with free "services" like the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites who don't pay for their "stock".

And, contrary to what many sections of the media would have you believe, this is not just a music industry issue. While the FAC and Lily Allen "battle" has been fought in the press, Equity, the NUJ, the Premier League, the Publishers Association, the Writers' Guild, the Musician's Union, the TUC and Unite have all recently signed up to the Creative Coalition Campaign, which supports the government proposal. They must be grateful that record labels are taking all the flack in this debate.

A source close to the FAC board (they're quite weary of speaking out of turn at the moment) says: "The proposal was fine until Lucien Grainge pushed Mandelson to add the disconnection bit to it."

But I asked him, what kind of effect will sending warning letters have if they can't be backed up by some sort of action? What if we have legitimate services, have educated the public of the actual effects of illegal filesharing and someone still uploads hundreds of thousands of tracks – some of them not even yet released - onto a torrent site?

"Well, then I'd say even the FAC would agree that we'd have to take legal action. The reason the FAC is against the current government proposals is that they think it's a waste of time." He continues: "They don't believe the proposal will go through in its current state. First of all it's too complicated and costly to enforce, technically. Secondly, civil liberties groups will oppose it and possibly even take it to court.

By the time the legal wrangling is over, filesharing will be a thing of the past. Everyone will go to darknets or swapping hard drives. Then all we'd have as a weapon would be our moral standpoint."

A moral standpoint? What would that be worth? And how effective would it be as a defence against someone uploading hundreds of thousands of tracks to be shared by billions, without compensating the creator for a single penny?

Original