After a period of procrastination that would put Hamlet to shame, the pastfew weeks have seen record industry bigwigs engaged in a flurry of activityaround the issue of music downloads and online piracy. A series of courtcases, launches and announcements have conspired to force the topic back tothe top of the agenda for label bosses and artists alike. The catalyst wasthe unexpected early success of Apple’s iTunes, which in the US has gotrecord labels all hot under the collar about the possibility that onlinemusic might be a viable revenue stream after all. But despite recent enthusiasm from consumers, it remains to be seenwhether this is the start of a genuine fightback against the illegalpeer-to-peer sites that have brought the labels to the brink, or the lastgasp of a dying industry. The music business estimates that it lost $4.2bnworldwide to online and offline piracy last year and, to many, making asuccess of legal download services is their last chance to stem the tide. Although only available to Macintosh users in the States, 3m tracks bymajor artists from Britney Spears to U2 have been downloaded from Apple’siTunes service at a price of 99 cents apiece since it launched last month.Even better news for five major labels – BMG, Universal, Sony, EMI andWarner – was the fact that most of the songs were downloaded as completealbums, soothing fears that online music would lead to the death of thealbum. Almost immediately, record label executives were frothing at the mouthwith excitement, issuing statements rejoicing in the fact that people didwant to pay to download music after all. Which was perhaps a bit rich giventhat it took a third party to finally provide a user-friendly,pay-per-track service that people actually wanted to use. The effects of the initial success of iTunes are already apparent. Online streaming giant RealNetworks last week announced the launch of itsnew download service, which will follow the Apple model, charging users 79cents a time to download tracks once they have paid a monthly $10subscription fee. And nothing epitomises the fresh momentum better than thepurchase of Sony and Universal’s unpopular PressPlay service by softwarecompany Roxio. The manufacturer of CD burning software paid $37.9m for the service,chiefly as a quick and easy way to pick up PressPlay’s existing agreementswith major labels and online back catalogue rights to a variety of majorartists including Justin Timberlake, Eminem and Coldplay. It plans to dropthe tarnished PressPlay brand and use it as the backbone for the relaunchof Napster, the one-time scourge of the record industry, which it boughtearlier this year. It too will operate along the lines of iTunes, withtracks from all current major artists and both subscription andpay-as-you-download options. The irony of Sony and Universal’s failed online distribution effortproviding the backbone for the legit relaunch of the daddy of all illegalcopying sites has not gone unnoticed. But it also signals a fundamentalchange in attitude, according to media lawyer Tony Morris. ”The mostimportant thing is Sony and Universal selling PressPlay. When you get Sony,who have traditionally guarded their rights zealously, giving a third partythe right to do anything with their catalogue, that’s a significant changein attitude,” he says. But Morris also believes that it’s a change thathas been forced on the major labels, not one that has been embraced withenthusiasm. There are signs, though, that the slumbering giants of the recordindustry are waking up to the potential of the web as a medium throughwhich to sell music as well as promote it. Leanne Sharman, vice-presidentof sales and marketing at Vivendi-backed download site MP3.com, believesthe message is seeping through. ”It’s only now that we’re working with allfive majors that we’re starting to see trends towards taking advantage ofthe web as a sales medium,” she says. In their defence, the majors argue that it has taken a long time tountangle the morass of licensing and publishing issues before they start tothink about the best way to sell music on the web. EMI has led the waywith its announcement that it will put 90% of its live catalogue on theweb, but progress remains too slow for many, who also point out that thecompany’s live catalogue represents a tiny percentage of its output. EvenEMI chairman Alain Levy admitted recently that the industry had a lot to doto catch up with the pirates. ”If you do not have a critical mass, youcan’t have an offering. This has changed dramatically in the last sixmonths. So now there is a business. You cannot build a business with halfthe music catalogue, you need the whole thing,” he said, acknowledgingwhat many third-party legal sites have been telling the majors for years. Ben Drury, the head of British Telecom’s Dotmusic on Demand downloadservice, which offers music from all five major labels, believes that thesuccess of Apple’s service will act as a Trojan horse for other sites.”The great thing is that it’s been very high profile. But behind thescenes the majors have relaxed their attitude to digital-rights management,meaning that iTunes users can burn and share tracks in a way that theyhaven’t been able to before. That attitude will filter over to this side ofthe Atlantic,” he says. ”The trend is that the illegal services aregetting worse, more congested and slower while the legal services aregetting better,” he says. But Paul Myers, founder of legal download site Wippit, which has beenstruggling for two years to finalise licensing deals with the major labels,would like to see less conversation and more action. While the big boys arecoming round to the idea that they need to offer a wide range of artists,he says they are still not making them available to sites like his onreasonable terms. ”The talk is encouraging, but we have been talking to these guys fortwo years now. If we’re the good guys and we’re getting treated like this,then why do we bother? The illegal sites have better conversations with themajors than we do,” he says, adding that while things are starting to movein the US, Europe is still lagging. ”Ultimately, the decisions will comefrom the US, and to them Europe is still a small island off the coast ofBoston,” he says. What has become clear over the past six months is that the majors havefinally woken up to the fact that the online music genie is out of thebottle and the cork won’t be forced back in by any amount of legal action.”For me, 2003 is year one of this area. The labels have realised whereit’s going and what they’ve got to do. The general consensus is that thereis something there and a real business is emerging,” believes Drury. Whether the new services represent a false dawn or a new hope isunclear. Either way, all are agreed that there’s a lot of catching-up to bedone. ”Five years too late, the music industry has realised that you’renot going to stop downloading and that they need a way to commercialise it.They scored a big own goal in trying to shut down Napster in the firstplace rather than buying it and building on it. If you concede a penaltyand score an own goal in the first minute of a match, you’re going to be upagainst it,” concludes Morris. Those in charge admit as much. ”The initial signs are that there is alot of willingness from consumers to get music in a legal way, but it willtake a couple of years to get there,” says Levy. ”The other point is thatright now the offering is very primitive to my mind, it’s just a list oftracks. We have to make it more sexy to go and download music. So we’reworking on all that and it will take some time.” Blur, one of the biggest-selling acts on EMI’s roster, recently had atop-five hit with Out of Time, which was released online weeks before ithit the shops. Levy, and his counterparts at the other major labels, willbe hoping that the title doesn’t prove prophetic. — Â