Coming in down in torrents, and it's not the rain at Wimbeldon
BBC Newsbeat reported-Virgin Media has told Newsbeat there is "absolutely no possibility" of taking legal action or banning internet users as part of a campaign against illegal file-sharing on its broadband network.
The firm has sent 800 letters to customers over the last month warning that they should not be using "unauthorised peer-to-peer networks" like BitTorrent or Limewire to swap copyright songs.
But still the question remains how do we feel about file sharing. Haven't we all taped stuff [or more recently burn CDs} from, friends, is this an extention of this OR due to the vast size of the pool of information something else.
If an album is out of print [so to speak] and unavailable elsewherem can that justify file sharing?
Do we use this as a try-before-you-buy option, to trial an artist or series, and then go on to buy other stuff, or in the case of things like Heroes the Box set when it finally arrives?
Your thoughts...
- More from blake.
- Login or register to post comments
I suspect
that the way that an average reader of The Word uses file sharing in a very different way to, say, your average teenager.
I know my expenditure on music has increased as a result of file-sharing and annecdotal evidence from my peers indicates the same thing. However, we are almost certainly not the people attempting to download the entire Internet merely because we can.
I personally don't feel any qualms about downloading out of print material and nor do I feel any qualms about downloading things that I've previous paid for but have lost etc, but I'm aware the industry would raise an eyebrow about the former and take a dim view of the latter. Try-before-you-buy is no defence before the law, even if your overall spending has increased.
File sharing is different from tape/ CD copying though. The argument that they're the same doesn't really wash. By copying a tape you weren't making it possible for thousands of others to copy the music.
A lot of people cite the 'well, the record companies ripped us off for long enough' argument, but that doesn't really stand up either. Even if one (wrongly) assumes any damage done to them is entirely deserved, you're also damaging the artist you're so desperate to hear. Unless you have no artist loyalty whatsoever, this can only be a bad thing.
It's also going to encourage conservatism on the part of record companies. Great.
But consider; file sharing is a technology, not a moral position. What if you want to distribute your music for free? A recent study concluded that 80% of user's iPods were illegal. What they actually meant was 'not downloaded via iTunes', so they were counting rips of your own CDs or music that artists were happy to share via Bit Torrent etc.
File sharing just isn't a black and white issue. Ultimately, it's going to change the music industry, and that may be a good thing, but one thing is certain, the day they learned how to convert music into zeros and ones was the day this became inevitable.