Rob Moriarty

A recent report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) claims that the value of the internet economy within G20 countries will double by 2016. The report, backed by Google, suggests that ever increasing mobile access will be the main driving force behind growth. It also names the UK as one of the most advanced e-commerce economies.

The increase in mobile access is down to a massive growth in the availability of cheap smartphones, devices which allow a level of mobile connectivity never before seen. Technology giant IBM has predicted by 2015 there will be one trillion devices connected to the internet, and with the rise of smartphones it’s not hard to see why. Whilst a few years ago, a phone with internet access and a desktop-class web browser would have cost hundreds of pounds, they can now be found for much less. In 2016, almost 80% of internet users will access the web through a mobile phone.

The increasing dominance of the internet can be seen as the proliferation of a new utility; much in the same way as water or electricity, the internet has become a fundamental part of the daily lives of many people on the planet. The Boston Consulting Group envisions a future where web access will truly break down international and corporate borders, allowing companies and customers all over the world to interact on a bigger scale than before.

Such a rise in connectivity has also led to a rise in awareness, and vice versa. The BGC’s researchers say that every household already researches about £2000 worth of goods online before buying them offline. People are aware of technology and how it can benefit them, and that means it’s not good enough for businesses to stand by and watch. Google’s chief financial officer, Patrick Pichette, says: “Understanding the economic potential of the web should be an urgent priority for leaders… [with] a powerful case for countries and companies to get online and reap the rewards of an age of data,”

Is your business online? Are you making the most of the web? If not, it might be about time you looked into it.

It can’t have escaped many people’s attention this week that some of the biggest online businesses took a stand against two pieces of legislation being proposed in the US. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act are an attempt by various parties to control what they call the ”unchallenged spread of piracy on the web”. A closer look at the proposals include barring advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with (allegedly) infringing websites, barring search engines from linking to the sites in their search results and requiring ISP’s to block access. The bill would also criminalise streaming of content, with a maximum 5 year prison sentence. In a nut shell the legislation aims to cut links to any infringing sites so that they can no longer function.

I’ll say right now, it’s fairly clear that IP theft is a bad thing. In an ideal world piracy shouldn’t exist. An artist should be fairly compensated for the work they do. Anyway, back to the real world…

The internet touches daily life almost everywhere now and is based upon 2 main truths: everyone is equal and information is immediate. It gives us what we want when we want it, and this filters into our general psyche too. From that perspective you can why, in the face of a lack of modern alternatives being provided by the content companies, that people choose to pirate. Why bother going to a shop anymore, wait days for a disc to arrive, or bemoan the fact your favourite TV show is shown in America weeks before you get the chance to see it on your own terrestrial TV? When you have an option in a matter of hours to download something of equal quality compared with the legal option, many will go with the quicker and easier option.

Every since Napster launched in 1999, the content industry has failed to adapt a) to the times and b) to changing demand. Over the last decade their tactic of suing everyone into oblivion has worked relatively well, in one case a defendant was ordered to pay just shy of $2M for sharing 24 songs. That isolated case shows just how far behind they are as such a punishment can never be justified if the defendant could never realistically pay those damages.

Successful digital content services like iTunes and NetFlix have been started by third party companies outside the industry. From their perspective they’ve obviously seen that market demand has changed in the last decade and their success to date proves there is a market for buying legal content. These acts have only been written in the interest of the content companies, rather than the individuals they are meant to be entertaining. This would be especially bad for community and social networking sites like Facebook as they would be responsible for every single users’ actions. The bill would allow them to claim against and remove that site’s rights that they felt were infringing, without involvement and legal process from the courts. Now if you agree with that, you need your head retuning. The legislation is also confusingly worded, referring to rogue websites, but failing to define categories like “foreign” and “domestic”.

There is a good article in the New York Times by David Carr quoting Yancey Strickler, which pretty much sums things up… “it’s the people who grew up on the web versus people who still don’t use it.” How apt.

The public pressure this week has certainly made a difference, although I am sure that the impact would have been far greater had Facebook also decided to close it’s doors for a day. However the anti-SOPA effort has managed to persuade 18 high profile supporters to abandon ship. So whilst the battle may have been won this week, the war most certainly will continue.

Both sides can agree that US copyright law needs an overhaul. But poorly written, draconian legislation is not the way forward. The US needs legislation that is forward thinking and protects the open nature of the internet – an internet that has already been a brilliantly creative place in the last twenty years.

(Many thanks to Dave Robertson for his input to this)

Rm.