All you can eat? (Within a limited menu)

Virgin have today announced that they are on the way to providing an ‘all you can eat’ music service, although they have so far only secured a deal with Universal.

It’s encouraging to hear that labels are now working to bring their content online, as they have also with Spotify. What’s less encouraging is the clear implication that the agreement of Universal was made contingent on imposing sanctions on Internet users without court action. Virgin will disconnect accounts temporarily when they are found to have been used to ‘persistently infringe’ copyright, but without judicial oversight.

This raises several questions. Firstly, it shows the perils of mixing up the role of ISP and content provider. As content provider, they have motivations around protection of their products and services, whereas as ISP, their business depends on providing connectivity.

Secondly, Virgin could be breaking their terms and conditions of service with their customers, or will have to make them rather odd. They will presumably contract with users to provide an internet connection, yet without proper oversight, and without a means for users to defend themselves, Virgin will breach at the very least the spirit of that agreement when imposing sanctions.

It’s difficult to imagine any sanction like this properly avoiding targeting homes that share connections, like student digs, or internet cafes, or shared households in general.

If the most persistent offenders – as Virgin claim – are those targeted by these kinds of response, then they are also those most likely to find technical means to hide their actions. This means those who get caught and suffer sanctions are more likely to be innocent, while the most likely to be infringing will not be caught.

This leaves us somewhat wary. Is this the route that ISPs will take, once their businesses mix provision of copyrighted material with supply of the internet? If so, questions about ‘net neutrality’ look that bit more real, especially given these comments from Virgin’s CEO.

So, despite having called for deals like this, which offer legitimate ways to access digital content, we cannot simply welcome this with open arms. It feels like Universal in particular are experimenting, but are still overly fearful of their own customers. Labels need to avoid this: they have great products, and people will pay fair prices. They should pursue deals like this, and make them more widely available, rather than dependent on specific ISPs.

We will also be keen to hear about the rates going back to artists. Part of the social compact that has been widely forgotten in these debates is that fans want artists to be paid, but low royalty rates on music products have convinced the public they are not paying creators, but content owners. We hope that Universal will show that artists benefit from the sorts of deals the labels are finally starting to make.