A study in France has shown that plans to introduce a three-strikes system to combat online piracy there have, so far, had little affect on file-sharing levels in the country. The report also says that French file-sharers are starting to access illegal sources of music using methods other that P2P networks, piracy which France's three-strikes system is arguably not equipped to tackle.

As much previously reported, the French parliament passed a three-strikes system into law last year, and a new government agency called Hadopi is currently setting it all up, though the system is not yet active, so it's perhaps not surprising that it has yet to have any real impact on file-sharing levels in France.

Though researchers at Rennes University wondered if the high profile media coverage of three-strikes becoming law might have, in itself, had an impact. But only 15% of the 2000 people they interviewed said they had made any change to the way they access music online since the three-strikes system - which in France could result in all out disconnection of net access - had been passed by the country's political types.

The research also shows that there has been an increase in the number of people accessing music illegally via online services other than traditional P2P file-sharing networks. This includes using unlicensed streaming services (there's one popular one called Allostreaming.com), or searching for MP3 files that have been illegally uploaded to legitimate file-exchange websites like Rapidshare or Megaupload. Of the 15% of people who have changed the way they access music online, two thirds had moved from traditional P2P networks to these other methods.

The file-sharing tracking systems used by record companies, which initiate any three-strikes action, currently only track P2P activity. Meanwhile the liabilities for infringement of individuals who access unlicensed streaming services are much less well defined in copyright law. These shifts to other forms of online piracy, therefore, arguably make three-strikes ineffective.

Of course it is with this in mind that UK record label trade body the BPI has been so keen to ensure there is a clause in the copyright section of the Digital Economy Bill which makes it easier to shut down illegal streaming services, or to force the likes of Rapidshare to monitor files uploaded to its system for possible infringement. Those attempts, though, have proven even more controversial than the original three-strikes proposals.

ITV's top online man Ben McOwen Wilson has told the Guardian's Changing Media Summit that the broadcaster has no plans to make its content available to video-on-demand services like Hulu, YouTube, SeeSaw or the new online-telly set up launched by Microsoft's MSN division last week. The struggling commercial broadcaster would rather build an audience for their own ITV Player.

Yeah, they just don't get it, do they? It seems the company who bought Friends Reunited three years after everyone had stopped using it still don't understand the internet. Last year's sale of the early-to-market but limited-interest social networking enterprise to Scottish media firm DC Thomson has just been OKed by the UK competition regulator, ITV will get £25 million for a website it bought for £120 million.

ITV's continued refusal to engage with the likes of YouTube and SeeSaw, unlike pretty much all their TV industry rivals, and instead insisting that their online future will be exclusively based around their woefully inferior ITV Player, tells you all you need to know about the third channel broadcaster - it's still horribly out of its depth in the digital world. One can only hope new boss Adam Crozier can kick some arse (and issue some senior-level P45s) and bring ITV into the 21st century.

According to the Guardian, McOwen Wilson told their media conference in London this week: "We have no plans at present to do any deals with YouTube. We are following an ITV Player-led solution because we want to push our own platform as hard as we can. We enjoyed 180% growth in terms of usership of ITV Player last year. Hulu is a major success in the US but the UK TV market is a different place".

The growth of illegal file-sharing could cost the European economy 1.2 million jobs and 240 billion euros in lost income, children will almost certainly die and there's a chance it could all result in nuclear Armageddon. And all because you downloaded that Jedward track from a BitTorrent site. I hope you're feeling pleased with yourself.

Yes, at least some of those claims were included in a report prepared by TERA Consultants for the International Chamber Of Commerce on the impact of ever rising online piracy on the European creative industries. The report reckons Europe's creative sector lost 1.4 billion euros in 2008 alone because of people nicking content online, though it's possible that's based on multiplying the number of digital files illegally downloading by their wholesale unit price, which is never an overly useful measure. But whatever.

Brendan Barber, the General Secretary of the UK's TUC, who endorsed the research, said the study further proved why political types should back the Digital Economy Bill and it's three-strikes provisions, which may very well stop, oh, who knows, a good 79 euros worth of that piracy.

Barber: "These results show piracy is a major threat to the creative industries in terms of loss of employment and revenues. If there was ever the proof needed to demonstrate why the Digital Economy Bill is imperative for the protection of our creative industries, this report is it".

The report takes data from EU governments, the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the EU's own stats brigade, and processes that information in such a way to reach the conclusion that by 2015 1.2 million jobs and 240 billion euros will be lost within the Union's creative industries. Whether you buy those stats or not, it is true that file-sharing has, in part, led to declining revenues in those parts of the creative industries - and certainly the music industry - that traditionally provided the most artist investment and some of the best creative job prospects, both of which have been negatively affected as a result.

Arguably the potential impact of struggling intellectual property businesses on the jobs market is a stronger argument for things like the Digital Economy Bill than the declining profits of the multi-national content firms, which is why the union movement are backing this report and using it to justify their support of three-strikes and the like.

That Jim Killock bloke from the Open Rights Group, who oppose the DEB of course, yesterday criticised the Labour movement for backing a report that supports three-strikes, telling The Guardian: "We have no truck with infringement of copyright, but it is shameful that anyone from the Labour movement can attempt to justify removal of vital services such as the internet as a punishment. Members of the Labour movement spent decades fighting for people's rights to basic services, education, and political organisation: they need to ask themselves where their true values lie". Though I think Jim will find the Labour movement's true values lie in the protection of jobs above all else. The clue is sort of in the title.

Many of those unions backing the ICC report called of the European Parliament to take action to help curb online piracy. Of course, as previously reported, most efforts on the file-sharing front amongst the European political community have been attempts to stop member states from introducing three-strike-style systems based on arguments like those employed by Killock. Though those attempts have, in the main, been unsuccessful.

The new report was published as the Digital Economy Bill, passed by the House Of Lords on Monday of course, formally arrived at the House Of Commons for its first reading. The second reading in the Commons is expected to take place on 29 Mar, after which the proposed legislation will head into what is likely to be a very rushed committee stage.

A new report predicts that by 2012 50 billion mobile apps will be downloaded each year, and that paid-for-apps will generate $17.5 billion a year worldwide. That, the report says, will make the app business bigger than the CD business, which it reckons will be worth $13.83 billion by 2012.

I think the message here is that bands should be making apps rather than albums, though a bulk of that seventeen billion will probably go on porn and stupid gimmicky fun-for-eighty-six-seconds downloads. Plus, the newspaper industry is sort of counting on the app sector to cover their ever mounting losses, so I'm not sure the music business can count on app sales alone to ensure its long term future.

Still, the report from Chetan Sharma Consulting makes for interesting reading, even if it was commissioned by Getjar, a mobile app store, so is probably a little biased. Perhaps we ought to think about making a CMU app after all. Hmm, which route to go though? Stupid gimmick or pornography. 

YouTube have finally got a programme off the ground which will enable independent and self-releasing artists to get a cut of ad revenue when their videos get viewed, though it's only open to US-based artists at the moment.

The YouTube Partner Program - aka Musicians Wanted - will give independent artists the opportunity to set up channels and get a cut of any ad revenue that channel generates, all 93 cents of it. They can also add sell-through buttons for downloads, tickets and merchandise to their YouTube page. Bands have to apply to become a partner, and it's not entirely clear what the criteria will be for being accepted.

The newly independent OK Go, one of the early YouTube success stories in the music domain, will be among the first bands to join the programme. The band's Damian Kulash said this: "YouTube has always been a great match for OK Go. We can connect directly with our fans. When we heard about Musicians Wanted, it was a no-brainer: it sounds great for us".

Oh, this is interesting. Pretty much any list of the most viewed websites will have Google at the top, but, according to research firm Hitwise, in the US last week Facebook eased ahead of the search engine giant for the first time. The web counters say that Facebook accounted for 7.07% of all web traffic in the US between 7 and 13 Mar, while Google accounted for 7.04%.

It's an important mile-stone for Facebook, though actually some of Google's specific services, such as Google Maps, aren't included in that 7.04%, and if US people use one of the web giant's other search engines somewhere else in the world - so they go to google.co.uk for example - that doesn't count either. If all Google-branded services are added into the mix, they account for 11.03% of US web traffic.

But it's still a sign that Facebook continues to dominate in the social networking domain, certainly in the US (and probably over here, too). Which can only add to the all round doom and gloom felt over at MySpace towers.

Opponents to the Digital Economy Bill are unhappy that the controversial legislation was passed by the House Of Lords on Monday despite issues surrounding one particularly contentious clause not being resolved.

As previously reported, last minute attempts by the Lib Dems to amend one of their own amendments, so to address concerns raised by most of the major web firms, were knocked back in the Lords following a government promise that the unresolved issues would be addressed as the Bill works its way through the House Of Commons. 

The unresolved clause is the one that formalises the powers of the High Court to issue injunctions that would shut down websites which contain large amounts of infringing content. The ISPs and major web firms like Google and Yahoo! last week raised concerns about the proposal, which was added to the Bill late in the day, to replace another controversial provision which would give ministers the power to introduce new anti-piracy rules in the future without requiring specific parliamentary consent.

Despite many saying that the injunction clause had been added too late in the day to allow sufficient debate, and despite the clause's original proposers - the aforementioned Lib Dems - wanting to make some changes to address concerns, the government halted debate on the provision, meaning the clause as it was proposed last week remains on the Bill as it heads to the Commons - though with the understanding it could still be radically altered at the next stage of the parliamentary process. So really the contentious provision is in limbo, pending the input of MPs in the lower house.

But, given that the Bill will have to now be rushed through to beat the pending deadline of the General Election, it's thought MPs won't have time to given the contentious clause proper consideration, plus the Lords won't get their usual final opportunity to scrutinise changes made to the proposals by their counterparts in the Commons. As we reported yesterday, all this led to one Lord, Merlin Hay, remarking "it's a complete and absolute abuse of parliamentary process - I'm not sure why we sit and debate at all".

Outside parliament, Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group has expressed renewed concern about the injunctions clause, and the failure of the Lords to amend the provision to address the issues raised by the web sector.

He told reporters: "Our elected MPs will spend a whole two hours on this bill before they disappear back to constituencies to ask for our vote, meanwhile, a 'rump parliament' made up of retiring MPs and party whips will pass it - with no actual debate". On the injunctions clause he continued: "This [clause] would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies. Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive 'copyright attacks' that could shut them down, just by the threat of action".

Presumably both sides of the debate will continue to lobby hard on this issue as the Bill passes to the Commons, though with the government on such a tight deadline, and the Tories seemingly in agreement on many of the Bill's proposals, and therefore willing to play ball in speeding said proposals through, it remains to be seen just how much the contentious injunction clause is altered moving forward.

In related news, there was much chatter yesterday also about the BBC's review of the Bill and its copyright proposals in an edition of 'Panorama' on Monday night. The TV show certainly did its bit to unite the opposing sides in this debate, in that they all seemed pissed off about the way their viewpoints were represented on the programme.

The aforementioned Killock blogged yesterday: "[On] Panorama, we mostly listened to a discussion between different musicians worrying about the future of their industry. While that's a concern - and the central concern of the BPI - our concern is our rights, democracy, and the future of our society, which is being built on the internet".

Again referencing the fudge on the injunction clause in the Lords, he continued: "We [should] not withdraw the basic tool of society without the most extreme reason. We certainly [should] not do such a thing without a massive public and democratic debate".

To Canada now, a country whose copyright laws - in many ways similar to ours - have been much criticised, especially by their American neighbours, for proving pretty ineffective in helping the music industry combat file-sharing and the like. As previously reported way back in the day, at one point a Canadian judge said the country's existing copyright laws, written pre-internet, couldn't be interpreted say that kids nicking tunes off the internet via file-sharing networks was illegal.

With that in mind, moves have been afoot for sometime to change Canadian copyright law, albeit without much success. Now a former musician who is now a member of the country's parliament is proposing a private members bill on two copyright issues. Though neither deals directly with the file-sharing issue, Democrat MP Charlie Angus admits that he doesn't expect his bill to be successful, but rather his aim is more to pressure the country's Conservative government to schedule some time to consider copyright issues.

The two proposals in Angus' bill, launched this week, are pretty balanced, one being in favour of the music industry, the other arguably favouring music users. The former is a proposal to introduce the often discussed and usually controversial iPod tax, so that a levy would be applied to MP3 players, similar to the levy applied in some countries to blank cassettes and CDRs. The levy would give consumers the right to copy music from CD to their MP3 players (something everyone already does, even if they don't technically have the right to do so in all territories), and would raise money for music organisations. The latter proposal would extend the fair use provisions that allow certain non-commercial groups to make copies of music files without a licence to do so.

Commenting on his proposals, Angus told reporters this week: "Digital locks and suing fans are not going to prevent people from copying music from one format to another. The levy is a solution that works. By updating it, we will ensure that artists are getting paid for their work, and that consumers aren't criminalised for moving their legally obtained music from one format to another. The fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act have been characterised by the Supreme Court as a key user's right. The futures of the creative, innovation and education communities all hinge on a reasonable interpretation of fair dealing".

On his wider aims, given that this specific Bill is unlikely to be successful in the Canadian parliament, Angus told Billboard that he hopes his proposals put "flags on the field" regarding the wider copyright debate, while adding: "I've looked at various scenarios. And if we don't find a way to monetise this for artists, we are going to have lawsuits ... what strikes me is that Canada has the chance to get this right".

Dimensional Associates are pushing forward with their previously reported bid to take complete ownership of independent digital distribution company The Orchard, by asking the firm's shareholders to agree to sell their stakes at $2.05 a share, up from the original offer price of $1.84 per share back in January.

Dimensional already own 42% of The Orchard, but want to take complete ownership. Doing so would take the digital music firm back into private hands, and in doing so make it harder for the company's financial fortunes to be analysed by third parties.

Yahoo!'s advertising division will sell display ads on streaming music service We7, it has been announced. Previously We7 ad sales were split between an in-house team and W00t!media. The new deal with Yahoo! is a sign We7 are trying to step up their ad sales operation.

We7 boss Steve Purdham said this: "A big issue in ad-funded music has been whether it can work, and a big part of that is ad sales. We've built a great opportunity for brands to reach audiences so now we have to ensure we can provide the scalability for the artists to get paid for their music".

The House Of Lords have passed the controversial Digital Economy Bill, though they rejected last minute amendments to the controversial clause that will formalise the powers of the High Court to shut down and block access to websites which infringe copyrights, with the government pledging to address ongoing concerns re that provision when the proposed legislation is discussed in the House Of Commons. 

As previously reported, record label trade body the BPI have been keen to ensure the copyright section of the DEB provides a means to fight online piracy other than P2P file-sharing, which the three-strikes provisions cover. When opposition was mounted to a catch-all clause giving ministers the right to introduce new measures to tackle other forms of piracy in the future without returning to parliament, the BPI put forward the specific High Court injunction proposal, which was backed by the Lib Dems. But that amendment proved just as controversial as the catch-all clause, leading to another amendment from the Liberals to hone the injunction provision to address web firm concerns. However, the second set of amendments were not passed.

Many argued that the injunction proposal had been made too late in the day, when there was no longer time to properly debate the newly proposed measures. Given the opposition to them from numerous ISPs and major web companies, some said it would be irresponsible for the last minute amendment to be made law. In the end, although the Bill was passed, that clause was sort of left up in the air, with plans to further discuss it all in the Commons.

Some Lords objected to the government's admission that they would further meddle with the clause in the lower house, given that the pending General Election means the upper chamber is unlikely to get any time to review amendments made by MPs before the DEB becomes law. According to PaidContent, one Lord, Merlin Hay, remarked "it's a complete and absolute abuse of parliamentary process - I'm not sure why we sit and debate at all".

It remains to be seen how the non-P2P focused clause now develops as the Bill works its way through the Commons, and whether the BPI will continue to lobby hard to ensure its injunctions system gets on the statute book. Some suspect both the injunction clause, or any reworking of the original ministerial power proposals, will have to be dropped to speed the Bill into law before the election.

More cynical types reckon the catch-all provision was added in the first place to distract opposition onto a sacrificial clause in a bid to protect the also controversial three-strikes proposals, which most political types now seem to think will be passed on the nod, providing the DEB can get through the Commons before parliament is dissolved for the election.

The opportunities presented by the internet, and the plethora of free digital tools that are out there, to help new bands build a profile, connect with fans, promote their project and sell their music, tickets and merchandise, has been a key topic of debate at the digital strand of SxSW the last couple of days, and will be the topic for discussion at a CMU panel in London in May, more on which soon.

But for those looking for more formal training in this domain, you might want to pay a visit to the website of Boston-based Berklee College Of Music, who, according to Digital Music News, are offering an online course in direct-to-fan music marketing. The course, which launches next month, will apparently look at how the music industry is changing and at the opportunities presented by the internet, and will then review specific marketing and distribution tools. 

More info in the music business section at www.berkleemusic.com

Real Networks US-based subscription music service Rhapsody has started promoting its planned iPhone app, which will presumably work pretty much like the Spotify and We7 apps which make those streaming services available via the mobile device for premium subscribers. The Real app is apparently with the Apple App Chiefs for approval.

One of Rhapsody's newer rivals in the US streaming market, MOG, is also expected to unveil its mobile app services at SxSW this week. It's all app-tastic.

As the Digital Economy Bill heads to the House Of Lords for its third reading today, the amendment to the controversial Clause 17, the just as controversial Amendment 120A, is likely to be amended. Which is fun.

Clause 17 was the provision within the copyright section of the DEB that would give future ministers the power to introduce new anti-piracy systems without going through the full parliamentary process. Amendment 120A removes that provision, but instead gives the High Court the right to shut down (and force ISPs to block access to) websites that prolifically infringe copyrights.

It is widely believed that record label trade body the BPI initially supported Clause 17 because they saw it as a way to get the proposals set out in Amendment 120A put into law after the Bill had been passed by parliament. With Clause 17 obviously likely to be cut for the Bill, the BPI threw the more specific Amendment 120A into the mix and the Lib Dems formally proposed it. The BPI want to ensure the new copyright rules introduced deal with more than just P2P file-sharing.

But Amendment 120A has caused just as much outrage from the anti-DEB brigade, who claim the High Court injunction system would be misused, and could be utilised by content owners against the likes of Google and YouTube. That seems really rather unlikely, but concern in the web community was enough to persuade the major web firms to join the internet service providers in formally opposing the amendment in a letter in the Financial Times last week.

Responding to that opposition, the Lib Dems are planning to amend the amendment. In particular, they plan to put increased liability for the legal costs of applying for a shut-down injunction on the content owners, so that said companies don't start applying for High Court orders on whim. The tweaked provision will also clarify how accused websites can appeal, and obligates content owners to alert website operators of their intent to apply for an injunction, and to provide a list of all infringed copyrights, before going to court.

According to a confidential BPI update on its lobbying activity intended for the trade body's members, which was leaked on the internet this weekend, it's not only web giants, ISPs and Stephen Fry who are opposed to Amendment 120A. Apparently MI5 are as well, though quite why isn't clear. Given the scale of the opposition, even some political types who generally support the copyright section of the DEB reckon the shut-down injunctions provision will have to be dropped in order to get the rest of the proposed legislation through parliament before the looming deadline of the General Election.

Speculation remains as to whether or not any of the Bill will make it onto the statute book before parliament is dissolved for the latest series of 'Politician Idol'. Assuming it gets through the Lords this week it will then progress to the House Of Commons. The aforementioned leaked BPI email is quite positive about the chances of the Bill slipping through the Commons on the nod, with the trade body reporting that opposition to the new copyright laws among MPs is isolated, and many Members accept that, given the looming deadline, the legislation will have to be voted on with relatively little debate.

So much so, the BPI email reports that meetings have already occurred between them, the Music Publishers Association and ISPs Sky and Virgin, on how the three-strikes system the DEB will make law might work on a practical basis. Consumer rights group Which? - who have said they believe a well run three-strikes system for combating file-sharing is better than the current system where file-sharers in theory face direct infringement litigation - are also said to be inputting on these discussions.

But, with opposition outside parliament still pretty damn vocal, and many of the groups opposing the DEB calling on their supporters to start bugging their election-sensitive MPs on this issue, some reckon there may be more shenanigans to be had in the House Of Commons on these proposals than some lobbyists currently expect. And while Sky and Virgin maybe willing to start considering how three-strikes will work already, as content owners themselves they've always been the more friendly ISPs on this issue. TalkTalk, for one, will continue to fight this until the final parliamentary vote is cast.

And, probably, beyond, because even if the DEB and three-strikes become law, TalkTalk are expected to hinder the new copyright system at every possible opportunity. Proving they still see this as a fight worth fighting, TalkTalk published research on Friday which claimed that 80% of 18-34 year olds who currently file-share said they would continue to do so even if three-strikes becomes law, and that they would circumvent the new net suspension system by using the various software systems out there will hide a user's online activity.

The ISP's Director Of Strategy, Regulation & Record Company Baiting Andrew Heaney told reporters: "Whatever measures are taken it will have little impact on the music industry's coffers but will leave in its wake innocent customers disconnected from the internet".

Those who oppose amendment 120a to the Digital Economy Bill, which was put forward by the Liberal Democrats, are making much today of the fact that the last minute provision seems to have been written by record label trade body the BPI.

This is the amendment that replaced the controversial Clause 17 of the Bill, and which has managed to prove even more controversial. Clause 17 gave future ministers the power to introduce new copyright rules on whim (well, sort of). Amendment 120a gives the High Court powers (or, rather, clarifies and maybe extends existing powers) to shut down copyright-infringing websites.

It was always assumed that the BPI supported the all-encompassing Clause 17 because they saw it as a way of getting an Amendment 120a type provision into law at some point in the near future. The record label trade body don't want new copyright rules to only deal with P2P file-sharing, given the growth of other kinds of online copyright infringement.

As previously reported, a consortium of ISPs and web companies (and Stephen Fry) put their name to a letter opposing the amendment earlier this week. They say the amendment is dangerous, and has been rushed in without proper debate.

It emerged yesterday that although the amendment was put forward in the House Of Lords by Lib Dem Tim Clement-Jones, that his wording is pretty much identical to a clause proposed by the BPI in a letter circulated to Lordy types earlier this year. This revelation provides ammunition for those who say the whole copyright section of the Digital Economy Bill panders far too much to the content lobby.

But the BPI said it wasn't embarrassed by the revelation it had basically written a clause of the Digital Economy Bill. To be fair, any legislation designed to placate competing lobbying groups may take certain expressions or phrases from the work of said lobbyists as political types look for compromise. And, in lobbying circles, getting a bit of your work directly pasted into a Bill is a gold star, have-an-extra-Hob-Nob-with-your-coffee achievement.

The Guardian quote the BPI thus: "This was a suggestion that we made to the government in 2009, with this wording. This version of the proposal was sent to the government and also to the opposition parties. The government decided it wanted to go a different way. The opposition parties, while not fully agreeing with it, saw it as a good framework for what they wanted to put down".

One of the BPI's rivals in the lobbying swamp on this one, the Open Rights Group's Jim Killock, admitted that most lobbyists would try to persuade politicians to take their wording, and that the record label trade body weren't to blame for having succeeded in this regard. However, he criticised the Lib Dems and Lords at large for being seemingly so ready to take the BPI's words on such a contentious topic.

He told The Guardian: "The BPI has got every right to do this. The question is why the politicians have said in such a complicated arena that they will take the BPI's ideas wholesale without consulting anybody else. It's the politicians who have been irresponsible here. It shows that they're taking the BPI far too seriously".

Not really music news, but an interesting story nonetheless. Facebook is threatening to sue the Daily Mail after the tabloid wrongly claimed that one of its freelance writers, a middle aged man, had successfully posed as a 14 year old girl on the uber-social network and that, "within seconds" he was approached by older men who "wanted to perform a sex act" (or, possibly, a 14 year old girl writing for a rival paper successfully posing as an older man, who knows?).

The Mail's big mistake was that while said freelance writer - Mark Williams-Thomas - had indeed posed as a 14 year old girl on a social network and had indeed been approached by a dodgy older man, the social network he was using was not Facebook, and he claims that the paper were well aware of that fact but incorrectly edited his article to name the market-leading social networking site anyway.

Facebook quickly threatened a libel action, and The Mail subsequently removed the firm's name from the story online and published an apology. Well, I say they removed the firm's name from the report online, they did cut it from the article and headline, but Facebook say they are still name-checked in the story's page title and URL, both of which influence Google searches. The paper admitted that because of "technical issues" (ie, no one at the Mail knows how to work a website) that was indeed still the case, but that the paper was now getting those Facebook mentions removed too.

Nevertheless, Facebook says it is still consulting its lawyers over the reputation damage done by the original story, and the paper's slow removal of all elements of it. A UK spokesman told the Guardian that the company was assessing what "brand damage has been done".

Talking of companies on the skids, the new bosses at MySpace have given a briefing in the US about upcoming changes to their platform which further sees the one time social networking service move more into the entertainment content provision and sharing space. MySpace also recently lost their CEO somewhat suddenly, of course, with Owen Van Natta being pushed out last month. As previously reported, former Chief Product Officer Jason Hirschhorn and Chief Operating Officer Mike Jones are now running the shop.

According to Billboard, Jones admitted at the briefing at MySpace's Beverly Hills HQ that morale at the flagging web firm had been hit by the continued rise of rivals like Facebook, and the high number of executive departures in the last twelve months. He added that some employees had "lost the will to keep fighting", and that those people had been invited to depart the company because "we are at the point now where we need believers". Though one would assume that anyone at MySpace who has ever actually tried to use the site would find it pretty hard to be optimistic, it still being one of the shittest sites on the web and all.

Jones is hoping that some upcoming refinements to the MySpace platform will make it slightly less shit. I'm not convinced they will. But they should further move the web service into the entertainment arena. Changes include the facility to compile music playlists based on what songs your friends are listening to, another sign that management realise that really it's MySpace Music that could still potentially succeed, rather than the social networking element of what the company offers.

That said, MySpace Music is pretty shit too. With a crucial ad sales partnership with Google up for renewal later this month, those MySpace staffers feeling somewhat pessimistic are probably just being realistic. And unlike EMI, if and when Rupert Murdoch and his backers decide to cut their losses, there'll be little in the MySpace business anyone would want to acquire.

A rather influential sounding group of web companies, including all the pesky internet service providers, Google, eBay, Facebook and Yahoo!, put their name to a letter in the Financial Times yesterday slamming the previously reported amendment to the Digital Economy Bill giving the High Court more powers to shut down websites that primarily exist to infringe other people's copyrights.

As previously reported, the amendment replaced the controversial Clause 17 of the DEB, which would give future ministers the power to introduce new copyright rules on whim without going through the full parliamentary process. Although designed to placate those who opposed that Clause, the amendment put in its place is proving just as controversial.

The content lobby, and in particular the BPI, wanted the extra clause added to the Bill so that the copyright provisions in it didn't just focus on tackling file-sharing, and gave some extra powers to combat other forms of online infringement. In theory the amendment simply formalises existing legal powers to stop infringers, but those who oppose it fear it will be open to misuse.

The letter, which was also signed by that all round expert on everything Stephen Fry, says that the new provision is too contentious to be slipped into the new copyright proposals at the last minute without proper debate. The letter says: "This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring".

It continues: "We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general-purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain".

Needless to say, the BPI do not concur. They issued a statement responding to the letter yesterday morning, saying: "The amendment adopted by the House Of Lords provides a clear and sensible mechanism to deal with illegal websites. Contrary to the claims in the letter, service providers would in every case be able to ensure that the decision as to whether a site should be blocked is made by the High Court. The court would be required to consider the extent of legal content on a website, any impact on human rights, and whether the website removes infringing content when requested. So the suggestion that the clause would lead to widespread disruption to the internet or threaten freedom of speech is pure scaremongering".

It continues: "The signatories to the letter recognise that dealing with illegal websites is a legitimate concern, and have argued in the past that action against illegal downloading should focus on commercial operators. Removing unfair competition from clearly illegal websites will encourage investment in legal online services and improve the legal internet experience for everyone".

In related news, the collecting society community has welcomed an amendment to Clause 42 of the Bill, which dealt with the role of collecting society type organisations in the digital era. Some feared the original wording of the clause - which would give a collecting society the right to represent songs without the explicit agreement of said songs' owners (they'd have to opt out) - could be open to abuse, so that web firms would set up their own collecting societies and license themselves everyone's music until copyright owners had cottoned on and opted out, or something similar.

The amendment says a collecting society can only come into being if it has the backing of the majority of the content owners it claims to represent, so only a community of copyright owners could initiate the launch of a new licensing body. All lovely.

OK, time for a quiz. Earlier this week record label trade body the BPI said that internet service providers should stop being just "dump pipes", and should take on the pirates who sale through said pipes, and then work with the record industry to develop music services that can be bundled into ISP packages, so that the net provider sector can have a share of the £103 million a year that the record label organisation reckons could be made by such services by 2013.

Here's the quiz bit. Do we think Carphone Warehouse owned ISP TalkTalk, the most vocal net sector critic of the record industry and an ardent opponent to three-strikes, responded to the BPI's report:

[a] By saying: "Fuck me, we hadn't thought of that, hey guys, let's cut off all the file-sharers, collaborate on some new TalkTalk music services, and all live happily ever after".

[b] By saying: "Well, most ISPs are already offering some digital music services, and while we take your point that there is more work to be done in this regard, we're not 100% convinced that the potential of this market in itself justifies such tough methods for combating file-sharing as proposed in the Digital Economy Bill, but hey, let's talk talk about this.

[c] By saying: "Thanks to the BPI for its strategic business advice, though some may question the value of such insight from an industry which has failed to acknowledge the impact of new technology on its own business models and is pressing the government to criminalise its biggest customers".

Answers on a postcard. A little clue: it's C.

Lobbying groups on both sides of the three-strikes debate published research yesterday, as chatter on the Digital Economy Bill reached its final stages in the House Of Lords and preparations to take the slightly controversial proposed legislation to the House Of Commons began.

The copyright section of this Bill, of course, will introduce the three-strikes procedure for targeting prolific file-sharers, like the really evil ones, who probably also bully teddy bears and pull the legs of spiders. The new laws would allow a government agency - probably OfCom - to suspend those file-sharers' internet access, seize any cuddly toys in their possession and put an exclusion zone between them and all arthropods.

The first bit of research came from one of the groups who support three-strikes, record label trade body the BPI. Their researchers Ovum reckon that if the six biggest internet service providers were to launch internet packages that had a licensed digital music service bundled in this year, the extra revenue they could generate on an annual basis by 2013 would be £103 million, assuming there was a "medium adoption scenario", which is my favourite sort of scenario.

I'm not quite sure how they figured that out, but obviously the point is that the ISPs, who oppose three-strikes, and who complain about having to contribute to the cost of running any new anti-piracy systems, have something to directly gain from the legit digital music market expanding which, the BPI would argue, is only possible if the provisions in the DEB become law.

Commenting on the report, BPI top man Geoff Taylor told CMU: "It's increasingly clear that it isn't smart [for an ISP to just] be a 'dumb pipe'. This report shows that the revenue potential of digital music services alone makes sound economic sense for ISPs. UK music companies want to innovate and develop exciting new digital offerings. ISPs such as Virgin Media have recognised that legal digital music services offer a more exciting and profitable future than continued widespread piracy".

Of course, the idea that ISPs help content owners police piracy in return for the two parties collaborating on new services, bundled into ISP packages, and on which the net firms can earn, has been around for several years now, and was the basis for voluntary talks between the two industries before three-strikes legislation was on the agenda. Virgin Media have been most proactive in pursuing this option, though their aim to launch an allyoucaneat MP3 service as part of their ISP package never got off the ground because all the majors except Universal Music weren't too keen on the proposition.

The ISPs would probably argue that they are more than willing to form content partnerships with the music industry, but that the financial terms previously offered aren't acceptable, especially when bundled in with piracy policing demands. And it has to be said, any digital music service set up by an ISP would probably be awful.