good point, good article. Cue angry fanboys who will prove your statement about the internet...

Yer, not only that but you can change your IP address at any time so the whole plan is flawed. It will never work.

Nicely written; humourous and a good point expressed well

could they not just shut down file sharing webites and make them illegal? correct me if they already are illegal, im a little in the dark on the subject

Sandell - that is what they're doing, sort of. The legislation applies only to uploaders, not downloaders, so people nicking the odd MP3 won't be affected. Trouble is, sites like The Pirate Bay defend themselves by saying they only 'host' files, they don't actually upload them themselves... It IS already illegal to share copyrighted material. But in practice there's been barely any attempt to prosecute, in this country.

I find it bizzare how sites like The Pirate Bay etc get away with it, it's like a fence saying "well I didn't steal the goods I'm selling" I'm sure there must be a way to stop it surely?!!!

Well they haven't got away with it. The founders have been sentenced to a year in jail. But that's under Swedish law.

Good points luke, i think your right they need to change the attitude towards illegal file sharing rather than trying to ban it

Great article and thank you for the hat tip. However, beingthreatened.com is not a 'geek blog'. It is a community site for those who have been falsely accused of filesharing by unscrupulous solicitors out to make a quick buck. They call it 'exploiting copyright infringement', but the term 'speculative invoicing' is more appropriate. It has been going on for years now. Anyone who has received a 'letter of claim' from a London law firm falsely accusing them of copyright infringement is invited to stop by for free advice on how to cope. The site also has an IRC chat where victims of this scheme can go for mental support.

Nice article and thank you for the hat tip. However, beingthreatened.com is not a 'geek blog'. It is a community site for those who have been falsely accused of filesharing by unscrupulous solicitors out to make a quick buck. They call it 'exploiting copyright infringement', but the term 'speculative invoicing' is more appropriate. It has been going on for years now. Anyone who has received a 'letter of claim' from a London law firm falsely accusing them of copyright infringement is invited to stop by for free advice on how to cope. The site also has an IRC chat where victims of this scheme can go for mental support.

Welcome to the dark-side, with 128-bit encyption and software to mask IP addresses. All the crackdown will do is probably punish the parents of teenagers downloading the latest autotune hit.

It's not like torrents are the only way to illegally download music. If I want to 'try before I buy' I'll just find a rapidshare, megaupload, sendspace etc. link - it's quicker and far simpler than downloading a torrent.

@beingthreatened - Thanks for the clairification, and sorry for misrepresenting the site.

There's no need to go anywhere near an internet cafe - surely anyone uploading in bulk will just hide behind a proxy? This will do nothing to stem the type of file sharers who are the record labels worst nightmare - it'll just continue causing bad PR for the industry by prosecuting teenagers and their parents. I'm guessing Mandelson thinks that the average man on the street wants piracy squashed, when in fact the average person on the street couldn't care less about it. The problem is, the average person on the street doesn't like the idea of being watched, so it seems risky to introduce this in the run up to an election.

I think in this case he's not aiming this at the man on the street - it's about being seen to do the right thing by business leaders.

Just out of interest, you mentioning the "dark web" made me think up the term "unternet", so I googled it - and it exists! Spooky... http://unternet.net/

Oh! so the plan hasnt started yet! thoguht it had! been on a break from limewire, but i shall re downlaod it whilst typing

Strange how the situation has changed about views on filesharing - five years ago no one was against filesharing - anything - among young people - it seems to have changed in the uk at least. Back in 2003 Jens Lekman would never had been famous if it had not been for his first songs to circle on the filesharing net Soulseek (and now he is on the top 250 of the decade on Pitchfork. Soulseek was also the place where I discovered Patrick Wolf long before any swede, or swedish record store (stores cant anyway have all the bands coming out every week, from every country and label, only filesharing can) ending up buying all his albums on vinyl later on. Now I hate him for his attitude against people like me, still loving his music...see people like me buy all the music we can, but without filesharing it is impossible to keep track on all good new albums that NME and Pitchfork got sent for free. We love music. I downloaded some album with The Veils that you mention, but that ended me up later going to a concert with them...you get the point. And dont mention Spotify, it sucks and want I´m looking for is always missing. Soulseek in 2003 was the perfect thing...RIP.

So many times I've had to illegally download a track because it's simply not available by any other means. Perhaps the first step to making people pay for their downloads would be for the record companies to actually *sell* their tracks...

What about if you download from Dimeadozen (which doesn't host copyright files) and YouTube?

There is an amazing attitude evolving, that stealing music or film illegally is something we are going to have to accept due to the development of the internet and file-sharing technology. Some people seen to think fighting this form of crime is 'uncool'. But if the internet allowed easy access to those same people’s savings accounts would they accept that ‘this is just the pace of technology and they have been left behind’ like the record labels? I work in the high tech photonics sector and we protect our IPR with vigour to ensure the future of our business and employees. Why shouldn’t the record labels who invest heavily in the creative arts protect their IPR. Anyone who suggests that this type of crime cannot be stopped, using VPN or hidden IP address etc, is technologically ignorant. More high level musicians/artists/writers should think about how they became famous in the first place (not by illegal file-sharing) but hard cash in the form of PR, advertising and distribution and the hours of hard work by lots of ‘behind the scenes’ employees. Is it possible that the artists who are ‘fiercely criticising’ the business secretary for this Bill; such as Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John and Damon Albarn, might not have been famous today if illegal file-sharing was in its heyday 30 years ago?

Does no-one here know ANYTHING about computers and programming them? MP3 files DO NOT look like MPEG files, or EXE files, or JS files et al. Policing the internet in the UK, Europe and the US would be easy. There simply aren't any laws that force WSP's and ISP's to do so at the moment!

What I don't get is that every Tom Dick or Harry has a 'myspace' page, so when I hear people stating they 'illegally download to try-before-they-buy', it just strikes me as bullshit. If I want to try before I buy, I just go to the artist's myspace page and stream a couple of songs. Anyway, I always love reading posts on blogs and articles about this topic, simply for reading the justifications the guilty blurt out for their ILLEGAL file sharing activities... Ho ho..

before we all get upset over file sharing being morally wrong. Why don't we enforce not selling guns and bombs to the Third World. That's far more important'. So some artist doesn't get paid for playing his guitar, sorry son but you aren't in it for the money eh? Its more like Sony gets upset if they themselves don't get paid !

Adam Brierley (inner voices): Elton John and Macca would have found their buyers anyway. But maybe more obscure artists from the 60´s like Strawberry Alarm Clock or Lee Hazlewood would have reached more people too if filesharing had been around then- records stores can never keep that many artists in stock - with filesharing the stock is endless. Remember small local stores back then outside the UK and US could just keep Beatles and a handful of other "hot" bands in stock - ok maybe more than a handful but you get the point. People listen to mores bands theese days, thats a good thing. When I was teenager in the 90s I mostly listened to The Manics and some britpop, listening to every album hundreds and hundreds of times, maybe buying 12 full price albums each year at the most. Whan Napster came in 2000 I might discovered 10 new favorite bands every month! And more money went into buying music, still I couldnt buy all new things I wanted (much was out of print) and I could not afford it all, but I still bought more than before Naptser thats the point. Jimbo: And discovering with MySpace? No! First, many good artists from the 60´s and 70´s does not have a MySpace page, then streaming 3 tracks of someone who has givin out 10 albums thing isn´t much of a fair experience to discover things...(then buying second hand vinyl is a better thing, and the artists doesnt get a dime from that either...)

Sharely: Dimeadozen (the rule is only bootleg matieral not officaly released) has a thing were they ban artists on the tracker if the artists or their companies writes to them and tell them to remove all the files (like Brian Wilson and many other has). So maybe the other artists thinks its ok? For YouTube, much with copyright is removed everyday- but I dont think they track people who just views it (somehow they think "streaming" is ok but not downloading even if both ways puts the track into your computer for you to save if you wish).

One point about file-sharing that never seems to be made is the political suicide it would be to take cracking down on it seriously. I think it's naive to think between the lawmakers and the ISPs, they can't come up with a way to stop illegal file-sharing. They don't do it because: 1- it would be massively politically unpopular, no politician would have the balls or principle to carry it through in a serious manner because of the huge backlash. 'Take away our free music and movies and video games and porn?? YOU BASTARD, I'm voting you out!' 2- Politicians probably like the fact that young people can download all the free entertainment they want - it keeps them distracted from real issues. Politicians know they can get away with murder, not that people are too stupid to realise it - they're too overstimulated to care enough to do anything. 'Circuses and bread'

One point about file-sharing that never seems to be made is the political suicide it would be to take cracking down on it seriously. I think it's naive to think between the lawmakers and the ISPs, they can't come up with a way to stop illegal file-sharing. They don't do it because: 1- it would be massively politically unpopular, no politician would have the balls or principle to carry it through in a serious manner because of the huge backlash. 'Take away our free music and movies and video games and porn?? YOU BASTARD, I'm voting you out!' 2- Politicians probably like the fact that young people can download all the free entertainment they want - it keeps them distracted from real issues. Politicians know they can get away with murder, not that people are too stupid to realise it - they're too overstimulated to care enough to do anything. 'Circuses and bread'

Wouldnt it be cheaper for the internet industry to identify the torrent websites and block them from the web, seems more logical

brill article! it won't work, i suppose thats all the majority have said before me but meh i'll say it again anyway. i like to think im a good downloader...I download a sample of tracks from an album for free and then if i like it, i buy it. i could just listen online but i prefer to put it on my ipod. plus theres some pretty awesome remixes knocking about on some sites (:

I believe that the illegal downloading issue is only as big as it is, as it is a cheap way to take a dig at young people. Politicians and media PR people are painting the picture that irresponsible and rebellious teenagers and young adults are the bain of media providers. Deliberately trying to ruin businesses and cheat artists of their money. In my experience this is not completely true. I have spoken to a number of older people who regularly download songs and movies (that they can't buy locally or don't wish to spend the money on) and don't even realise it is illegal. My favourite response from one lady was "But if you weren't allowed to download it why is it on the internet?" I believe that young people still prop up media providers as they are such avid consumers and have more disposable income. Sure they don't pay for everything they consume but for many of them, if they couldn't download a particular song or movie they wouldn't have bought it either. It's not really a lost sale every single time someone downloads a file. Ethically though, we should encourage consumers to financially support artists they enjoy so they can continue to produce quality media.

Last week I read an article saying that single sales hit an all-time high this year. Despite a recession. I've personally bought half a dozen albums this year that I wouldn't have bought if I couldn't "try before you buy." So why do people insist on seeing the issue in such black and white terms?

1) Most people have morals, like this article says, and though they might not be bothered about illegally downloading tracks from massive bands like Snow Patrol or that lot, they would have qualms about illegally getting anything by minor, struggling, unsigned or new bands. I know loads of people that actively save just so they can help these little bands start out, when it would be so much easier just to get it for free. Besides, such small bands are even more rarely uploaded. 2) I don't illegally download, normally. Really. I stream of YouTube (I suppose that's illegal if it doesn't have the copyrights), yeah, but I do actually try to legitimately get this stuff. But some songs and bands just aren't commercially available. Old stuff; you'll be lucky if you can even get a 'Greatest Hits' album. Obscure B-sides? You have to do a lot of digging just to find somewhere which even mentions them. In fact, anything that is slightly different to the status quo isn't sold on 'normal' sites. HMV, for example, which basically has a monopoly on the UK album market, doesn't sell anything not ridiculously mainstream. 3) In fact, a lot of illegal downloading is done either by real die-hard fans (who can't find the tracks they want legally) or ringtone chavs. And to be honest, who cares if a few autotuned one-hit wonder commercial acts get a bit less money? They can go and work in a supermarket, where they belong. 4) And if they really wanted to stop illegal downloads, why not just make the legal ones cheaper? 79p a track? Rip-off! Whereas conventional records have to be pressed, packaged, distributed..., the only thing download providers have to pay for is the bandwidth. It's costing them less then a penny a song...I guarantee if they put the price down to 10p a track the illegal downloads business would be virtually wiped out. Period.

1) Most people have morals, like this article says, and though they might not be bothered about illegally downloading tracks from massive bands like Snow Patrol or that lot, they would have qualms about illegally getting anything by minor, struggling, unsigned or new bands. I know loads of people that actively save just so they can help these little bands start out, when it would be so much easier just to get it for free. Besides, such small bands are even more rarely uploaded. . 2) I don't illegally download, normally. Really. I stream of YouTube (I suppose that's illegal if it doesn't have the copyrights), yeah, but I do actually try to legitimately get this stuff. But some songs and bands just aren't commercially available. Old stuff; you'll be lucky if you can even get a 'Greatest Hits' album. Obscure B-sides? You have to do a lot of digging just to find somewhere which even mentions them. In fact, anything that is slightly different to the status quo isn't sold on 'normal' sites. HMV, for example, which basically has a monopoly on the UK album market, doesn't sell anything not ridiculously mainstream. . 3) In fact, a lot of illegal downloading is done either by real die-hard fans (who can't find the tracks they want legally) or ringtone chavs. And to be honest, who cares if a few autotuned one-hit wonder commercial acts get a bit less money? They can go and work in a supermarket, where they belong. . 4) And if they really wanted to stop illegal downloads, why not just make the legal ones cheaper? 79p a track? Rip-off! Whereas conventional records have to be pressed, packaged, distributed..., the only thing download providers have to pay for is the bandwidth. It's costing them less then a penny a song...I guarantee if they put the price down to 10p a track the illegal downloads business would be virtually wiped out. Period.

1) Most people have morals, like this article says, and though they might not be bothered about illegally downloading tracks from massive bands like Snow Patrol or that lot, they would have qualms about illegally getting anything by minor, struggling, unsigned or new bands. I know loads of people that actively save just so they can help these little bands start out, when it would be so much easier just to get it for free. Besides, such small bands are even more rarely uploaded. . 2) I don't illegally download, normally. Really. I stream of YouTube (I suppose that's illegal if it doesn't have the copyrights), yeah, but I do actually try to legitimately get this stuff. But some songs and bands just aren't commercially available. Old stuff; you'll be lucky if you can even get a 'Greatest Hits' album. Obscure B-sides? You have to do a lot of digging just to find somewhere which even mentions them. In fact, anything that is slightly different to the status quo isn't sold on 'normal' sites. HMV, for example, which basically has a monopoly on the UK album market, doesn't sell anything not ridiculously mainstream. . 3) In fact, a lot of illegal downloading is done either by real die-hard fans (who can't find the tracks they want legally) or ringtone chavs. And to be honest, who cares if a few autotuned one-hit wonder commercial acts get a bit less money? They can go and work in a supermarket, where they belong. . 4) And if they really wanted to stop illegal downloads, why not just make the legal ones cheaper? 79p a track? Rip-off! Whereas conventional records have to be pressed, packaged, distributed..., the only thing download providers have to pay for is the bandwidth. It's costing them less then a penny a song...I guarantee if they put the price down to 10p a track the illegal downloads business would be virtually wiped out. Period.

the industry standard was technics... VINYL.... test presses... white labels... somewhere between £1 and £5 a record.... and its 1 record per tune.... i think its a shame that people see vinyl as obsolete because it really is the best medium for djing. we switched to "cd decks" in the early 90s thanks to denon and a few other companies making the 19" rack 'dual' player with pitch control. nowhere near as versatile as vinyl, but no jumps, no crackles and so on.... so people started to switch... then along came pioneer with their "platter emulation" feature on the CDJ decks. they are now "the industry standard"... go in any club n you'll probably find cdj800s or cdj1000s or something.... the new pioneer model has a USB feature where you can share a USB drive between 4 decks, therefore needing NO legit collection to dj to people around the world anymore... and is it still illegal?? YES. so pioneer are allowed to promote illegal activity but its just the end user that gets the fine is it? how is that fair then? also, try and find the 12'' mix of something on a cd single... because you could until about 1998, when they changed the law and said "NO MORE THAN 20 MINUTES ON A CD SINGLE"... so therefore the "club mixes" were gone from cd forever. you then had to subscribe to a company such as promo only or dmc or the white disc to get the 12'' mixes. they are all fairly well known for their useless output, and no real 'finger on the pulse' with whats hot in the clubs and what isn't. if you cant get your music any way apart from paying £8-10 for one song on vinyl and then ripping to mp3 yourself, or typing it in filestube and finding the rip already done, HOW ELSE are you supposed to keep a collection easy enough to transport to your places of work? If i took all my vinyl and decks to each place i dj'd at, i'd probably need 2 or 3 vans to get it all there and have to employ 20 or 30 people to carry it all just for one night... so GIVE ME THE CD EQUIVALENT AND I'LL BUY IT! i promise.... but i'm NOT paying a RIDICULOUS amount for a piece of plastic with 1 or 2 tracks on it just because its the only place to get it.... also vinyl is never released until the tune has been made 'big' by people with it on CDR promo anyway, so if you wait for the vinyl you're probably about 3 months out of date in the clubs anyway..... the ONLY people that are making this whole problem easier are people like beatsdigitial and beatport. they sell the full club mixes in mp3 form. There is STILL this legal issue of MCPS though, its ILLEGAL for me to download a song from itunes and then burn it and play it in a club.... ILLEGAL. If i record my vinyl to CD, i'm also breaking the MCPS (mechanical) laws and could be fined for it. What am i doing wrong? Who owns the music? Did i get the licence to do whatever i wanted to do with it because i paid £10 for a record? NO. All im doing is 'renting the content' from the label, I'd suggest EVERYONE who reads this goes and researches PRS/MCPS/RIAA laws... and THEN goes to the pirate party website and signs their name for a REFORM on copyright law. It's absolutely DISGRACEFUL that politicians would get involved in a CIVIL matter. The record labels have ENOUGH money to pursue this themselves, are we going to be "bailing them out" next?! GRRRRRRRRR