I think it’s because of the thin line of privacy that prevents you from looking at what they’re doing.
I mean, would you read their diary?
However, I agree you need to know what they’re up to, if for no other reason than making sure they are not committing illegal acts.
Far more worrying these days, is who they’re talking to, or rather, who they think they’re talking to.

I fully agree with the article and also Mr Flynn. Honestly, the music industry COMPANIES and ignorant artists (not the non-ignorant ones) should just stick their nonsense up their wotsits. It has been proven over and over again that file sharers spend more money on music and films than non-fileshares because they are exposed to more material. Whenever there is an evolution in an industry you always get the companies or individuals from another era who are unwilling to listen to or try new ideas just fight and fight until they eventually die. Sooner the better! I pay for music I like and keep. However, how would I be exposed to the variety without file-sharing. It is similar to swapping records back a few years ago…except on a much larger scale. This is what some find rather scary. What we are on the threshold of is a new era where interlectual material is being shared and exposed to more and more material. Yes, this does mean that the individual pieces of material can go down…but it means that hopefully only interlectual material that is great and of real quality will thrive. No comments on Lady Ga Ga though.

I hope I have got my point across there. This is slighty rushed.

Hit the nail on the head Mr Collins – fair enough kids should know what they’re doing is wrong but how can ‘parents’ just plead ignorance? The parents need to get up to speed on the things their kids do and the kids need to value things like music again. I remember when buying a new CD single was the highlight of my life and I still have a lot of them now (won’t go into titles, far too embarassing!!). This basic respect for others people’s property needs to be instilled in todays youth, and I’m ‘only’ 29 so it’s one generation behind me and it’s gone so wrong…

Good article, but it’s getting so boring seeing the same specious arguments trotted out re file-sharing. You may or may not agree with the business models of the music industry and may, as I do, think that they are draconian in their responses, bit there’s no escaping the fact that downloading music is illegal. Do it if you want, encourage others to do it in some kind of protest if that takes your fancy, but stop kidding yourself that you have some kind of moral right to do it. As for number 7’s comments about cost, why do I get the feeling that 30p wouldn’t be cheap enough either? Seems the music industry execs aren’t the only ones who need to wake up

Comments from no4 are basically saying they thieve which is not anything to brag about and he seems to think he has the inside track on how expensive it is to make music now days and promote it and so can tell people what should be yes he steals it anyway?
I never understand the comments from thieves on this subject and how they think they are on the side of right when they are stealing? When will people accept that stealing is stealing and all the rubbishing of record companies and artists wont make stealing suddenly right. People seem to be dipping into a cesspit of low life acceptability, which is very sad, and yet we comment on it like its jus the kids doing it. They learn from the parent’s example.

remember people if you steal then your a thief there is no argument to that..

I think that I could be out of order here – due to my senility, but I clearly remember getting friends TAPES with music recorded from my vinyls (ok I’ll tape you the new so-and-so that’s just come out). I find it mildly amusing to think that GIANT record companies that also happen to own a Hi-Fi, department used to manufacture and sell tape recording devices. What I cannot seem to remember, however, is the copyright argument they ranted about in those days…maybe it’s my advanced state of senility or maybe there was no copyright issue back then. As for this new generation, all I have to say is -Good luck world, you’re gonna need it

If the music industry is serious about surviving they have to completely rethink their business model, as simple as that. Lobbying government and slapping $250,000 fines on a 14 year old is neither a solution nor a deterrent; besides the Panorama documentary showed how easy it is to thwart any tracing the record companies maybe doing; hackers, pirates, etc will always be a step ahead.

What the music industry is always tight-lipped about is how much money the internet has made them, and at the same time how reluctant they were to give up the traditional business model of selling overpriced ’singles’ and albums in shops.
The same really applies to the movie industry and major TV content creators. The business model is based solely on what they feel they can control in an absolute form, instead of embracing the fact that we are in a global economy now, and the internet quite simply makes content available to all who have the bandwidth within minutes of its general release. Surely if you were a business man you would embrace this, as it can create a massive surge of income and definitely reduce the production and packaging costs, as well as losses for when CDs/DVDs have to end up in the 99p bin at your local filling station? Think of the waste and environment impact of all of those shiny disks that end up in skips day in day out. It is a model they want to preserve because they in their belief that they control it absolute they will make more money, where the digital economy has proven in music more can be, loads more, through eliminating all of that waste.

In terms of the parents pleading technical ignorance is just a sham, do they plead ignorance if they do not have a deeper understanding of tax law, or if their kids were on some ‘yet to be heard of’ designer drug. I am afraid the internet has become a convenient device to get rid of the kids so they can have some ‘peace time’ – essentially the internet us today, what the TV was for me in my youth.

Last point… the lobbying, laws passed, subsequent court cases, possible jail times that may occur from strong copyright infringement laws echoes strongly of how well the war ong drugs has gone thus far. It has cost governments around the world billions and filled up prisons with mostly harmless people, who likely will become criminals as a consequence of their time inside. The only real difference here though it is business interests rather than community interests that are being protected. The recording industry have in essence got the government on their side, and it will be our taxes that will fund the protection of their income through the necessary law enforcement, court time and possible jail time that will likely be necessary when enforcing these laws. There is something morally wrong with this. The record industry gets loads of income through laws that have been passed in the favour, for example all blank CD/DVD media carries a levy.
If I were the law make I would tell the music industry to rethink their business model. There is plenty of money being made, and plenty more to be made.

Fergal Sharey argued that less new talent will get a chance because of illegal downloads… I just think heavy promotion costs are normally levelled at impressionable 14 year girls mainly. I have no interest in the the sort of music which is more about the image, sex or idealised lifestyle it portrays. It is more often than not bad music, disposable junk that we will forget about completely in a decade. If you take a look at the average music poster or billboard, and I think some of you will see what I mean. The word ‘artist’ doesn’t immediately spring to mind… more performer or pantomime, or expensive karaoke singer is often a better description. One could argue that is talent, but then so is a dancing monkey, but we donlt have that rammed down our throats by almost every commercial TV and radio station, and every square inch of billboard space taken up by it either. In fact about 80% of that what was expensive to promote in the past years I could have done without. I only know about them because it is forced on me, is the pinnacle of British music, or the best there is, no, not by a long shot, and the sorts of people who can perform and write good music, likely are not good looking enough to get the target market excited with hormonal lust.

The main problem is that the ways to stop (If it’s needed) file sharing is all wrong. Most of the comments here only agree or show their opinion, but I would hate the idea that I could be held liable for downloading something I already own in hard format. The industry at the moment asumes that all those who use file sharing use it illeagaly, which isn’t true.So why should I be punished.

Also, in response to sandor’s comment. Who is anyone to dictate anything we do. Why should people be punished for liking music, or using the internet how they choose. You choose to watch TV.

We should be living a democracy, it seems we live in a place that means we decide who will make choices that affect us without our choice. What an illusion.

More thoughts on assuming all file sharing being wrong.( Note not illegal)Take for example family guy. Bought the DVD’s, paid my TV licence, watched the ads on FX ( I think ) paid for sky ( bound to have been on there sometime) want it on my ipod? guess what – gotta pay for it again. The only legal copy I am allowed to make is to record it from broadcast – even then Virginmedia sometimes tells me I can’t. Ask yourself a question “How many times do you have to pay for the same content?” I admit to downloading copyrighted material. Sometimes I can’t be bothered to change format (Another felony) sometimes my CD has been damaged. Sometimes what I want to buy is no longer availiable. Sometimes I hear / see something that interests me I download or watch on youtube.( Not everything on youtube is properly licensed or so I am led to believe)(and if I like it I WILL buy it) I get heartily pi**ed off thinking about how many times I have to break the law just to enjoy content I have already paid for – sometimes more than the once. Any law that tells me I am not allowed to hold an image of a HD disc ( That I own ) on a file server in my own home or listen to a cd via my ipod cannot be relevant. If people see the law as a joke they will break it – if the law appears reasonable they will abide by it. To return to the analogy of the handbag theft – It is wrong to steal a handbag – no arguments there – If the man who sold you the handbag tells you that you can only use that particular handbag on a friday whilst wearing that off the shoulder red dress unless you buy a license for use on saturdays with a little black number – you see the problem with analogys

Not only is she a record industry stooge by virtue of being married to a big label A&R man (surely a conflict of interest for a BBC Radio DJ)

Sorry for the instalments, wouldn’t let me post due to a dodgy word, so I had to use process of elimination to work out what it was. Unfortunately I can’t say what it was because I can’t type it here, however it wasn’t a swear word and didn’t contain one (ie Scunthorpe).

I’d like to listen to an album before I buy it, without having to traipse down to a record shop and put on a pair of infected earphones just to find out that the album I was thinking of buying was full of junk, apart from the one track played on the radio or TV, and a thirty second snippet on Amazon just isn’t enough for me.
Also, why should I have to pay yet again for something I’ve already paid for (Frequently more than once) previously in a different format?
I pay my TV license, Sky, Taxes, so why can I not listen to or watch content in my own time when I feel like it?
MP3 quality is way below CD quality, so why do companies charge the same, or even more for poorer quality music?
On many occasions I’ve seen MP3 albums for sale for around £15 when the original, full quality CD is available for less than half the price. Whats THAT about?
Stealing seems to have taken on a new meaning nowadays too.
Before file sharing, when someone stole something, they deprived the original owner of the object stolen.
This is ILLEGAL COPYING.
I wish people would get their terminology right in these things, as it just serves to confuse the matter even further.

The music industry has been screwing us for years for plastic disks that cost next to nothing to make, and when kids prove they can use the internet better than the big moguls they bleat about it!

Rather than spend money make it impossible to copy their music (which is easily done)they hit the kids and their mums – that’s what i call a bad-tempered repsonse to their technical inadequacies.

Rather than bleat about kids breaking the law, how about their little darling artists that break the drug laws every day and get away with it?

Biter bit I say, and now they are offering music tracks online just as they should have been doing years ago when the technology became avaialble. Would that have happened were it not for these kids giving them red faces? I think not, so well done to the (so-called) illegal downloaders!

I call them heroes.

Pete

As a parent, I agree with the point that parents are partly responsible for their children actions.

However, having been young once, I know that children will have their own ways to get around their parents, especially when kids are so smart nowadays.

In my humble opinion, the best way to address the issue is to tackle the root of the problem, which is to close down the sites that are promoting or allowing piracy activities in the first place.

Moses