Since the trial and conviction in Sweden of the Pirate Bay founders, and the subsequent election of a Pirate Party MEP in the European elections, Christian Engstrom MEP has featured heavily on television and in the press in the UK. His subsequent appointment to the Legal Affairs Committee of the EU parliament has exacerbated this. We have heard many theories and opinions that this is the start of a revolution which will sweep away the system of copyright as we know it. Those who espouse this view will argue that amongst young people in Sweden, SPP was the most popular party in the recent elections.
So, what do Mr Engstrom and his crew believe; for what exactly are they calling the youth of Scandinavia to the barricades? Well he paints a fairly depressing picture of the views of many young people about copyright in general and copyright in music in particular; they don’t see any value in it. What is even more discouraging is that his analysis of the current situation and the premise upon which he sets out his view of the future of copyright is founded upon a glib misstatement of reality. He claims, in an interview with Classical Music Magazine in June, that “the problem with the internet in terms of protection is that most of the culture that was created in the 20th century is locked away and illegal to spread or use”. This is simply not true. It is easier, and cheaper, to access through legal services a wider range of the copyright repertoire (of all genres of music) than it has ever been and many of these services are “free” to the consumer.
Mr Engstrom also appears to have already learnt the politicians’ art of tailoring his message to his audience: in the interview with Classical Music Magazine (which he must know is read by composers) he stresses the importance of, and his party’s support for, the inalienable rights of the creator. However this laudable sentiment is somewhat undermined by the fact that he appears to believe that authors’ moral rights consist solely of the right of paternity. He conveniently overlooks the equally important right to object to derogatory treatment. So the stated aim of maintaining the author’s moral right seems to fall at the first hurdle. Indeed so easily is this aim upset that a cynic might believe that it was included merely to add a composer-friendly sheen to his piratical views. This belief is strengthened by the fact that when he speaks to the FT he apparently forgets his party’s commitment to such rights.
Our latter day Long John Silver reveals his true colours by his assertion that the appropriate period for copyright is five years and that if a piece of music cannot “support” its composer in that time then “unfortunately you have to do something else”.
Mr Engstrom completely ignores the obvious point that by limiting the period of copyright in this way he would destroy the economic model of any collecting society (such as PRS for Music) which would mean that composers would be unable to collect even the little income from their work that he would allow them. He does not explain why anyone would have more respect for the shorter period of copyright or how the “civil liberties” argument that he goes on to raise would be solved by even this shorter period.
When these views are seen in the light of two recent announcements from his friends at the Pirate Bay, they become less altruistic. First that Pirate Bay is launching its IPREDator VPN which allows people to use BitTorrent anonymously to avoid their details being grabbed by investigators. This new system is being beta tested with 3,000 users, with another 180,000 apparently waiting to sign up. At the proposed charge of €5 a month, that means a potential revenue stream of €915,000 a month for The Pirate Bay. The seconds following hot on the heels of this was that Pirate Bay was to be sold. So it appears that Mr Engstom is content for others to make money out of composers’ music; just not the creators themselves.
If music really is “the point where words stop” then we can only hope that Mr Engstrom and his party take up composition: at least that might stem the nonsense that flows when they use their “un-creating words”.
