BPI “parasites”…

This is a catch up from a couple of months ago, when the BPI published a report on file-sharers. (Sorry the link’s only to Metro News, but it’s the most concise).

Now, I’m involved in the creative arts, so I don’t subscribe to piracy. All my software’s legit. I don’t actually but a lot of music any more – but I don’t download from file-sharers either.

But it never fails to amaze me how the record companies manage to keep a straight face when describing … well … anybody else as a “parasite”. These guys want me to pay again to listen to the CD I’ve paid for on my iPod (and Feargal Sharkey should be ashamed of himself for aligning with them). Some of us probably remember CDs being promoted as “Pure perfect sound forever“, and lots of us have rotted examples in our racks.

Basically, these organisations construct financial barriers to enter the market, so that – generally – it’s the artists with the best promotion team that sell the most records. Artist royalties tend to go towards paying off the advance (which is spent on recording studios) and marketing / promotion costs.

The artists only make real money from concerts. The record companies rant about “stolen” money – but they are the ones who’re losing, not the artists.

So (to bring this post up to date) it was nice to see some genuine talent rewarded at the Brit awards, rather than the plastic creations of TV talent shows and celebrity magazines (yes, there are some talented performers, but – with notable exceptions – I wouldn’t necessarily describe them as “creative artists”).

ACS: Law ceases to pursue “illegal file-sharers”

The BBC has reported that ACS: Law has ceased to work in the area of pursuing “illegal file-sharers”. seefirst doesn’t agree with copyright theft, but – if the reports of their business practices are accurate – ACS’s practices were running close to demanding money with menaces.

Andrew Crossley – the solicitor who headed up the law firm – has cited threats he has received as the reason for his withdrawal from this market segment.

I’m sure the irony of this won’t be lost on those who’ve been following the case.

ACS is currently under review by the Information Commissioner – following the disclosure of confidential information on it’s website. That information apparently included bank account details and (in some cases) card security codes (something that merchants are never supposed to record).

ACS is also under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as are other firms which been over-enthusiastic in chasing the opportunities afforded by the Digital Economy Act (which was rushed through Parliament as part of the “wash up” before the 2010 election).