• on air
• artists
• music news
• gigs & tickets
• breakfast
• x-lists

• competitions
• festivals
• gig news
• gossip
• releases
• travel
• uk news
• weather
• winter wonderland

File Sharing: The Debate Continues

added 22 September 2009 at 11.02

So, the debate over file sharing is hotting up, with a whole heap of artists wading in with their two cents. But what does it all mean and who is on whose side? Xfm has trawled through the news, comment and counter-comment to find out just what is going on.

WHAT IS FILE-SHARING?
Basically, it's using peer-to-peer networks to exchange music over the interwebs. According to the industry body the IFPI, 95% of all digital music downloaded in 2008 was obtained illegally.

WHY IS IT ILLEGAL?
Because pretty much all of the music shared is copyrighted and it means that the artists get no revenue from the sales of their records.

WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Lord Mandelson is pushing through legislation that will mean persistent file-sharers will have their internet cut off.

WHAT HAVE OTHER COUNTRIES DONE?
In April, the organisers of the Swedish file-sharing site The Pirate Bay were found guilty of aiding copyright infringement, but the site lives on in various guises. In the US, the RIAA (their BPI) have in the past gone after individual file-sharers, firing off lawsuits. In the case of Joel Tenenbaum, they won the case and were awarded $675,000 in damages, based on the amount of files downloaded. In France, despite President Nicolas Sarkozy's support for a similar "three strikes" law, the government are still debating the proposition.

WHO ARE THE FEATURED ARTISTS COALITION?
A collection of concerned musicians, including Radiohead, Blur, Tom Jones, Kate Nash, The Futureheads and many more who want to open a debate with the labels and government. They believe that file-sharing should be outlawed, but that the "three strikes and you're cut off" rule is "grossly disproportionate" as an option and basically unworkable.

"The power to demand suspensions of accounts is only achievable through a wide-scale invasion of personal privacy," they told The Times. They state that they are NOT pro-file sharing: "This is not the case and never has been."

WHY HAS LILY ALLEN STEAMED IN?
Ms A has set up a blog, (http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com) stating "The FAC seems to be viewing the government’s proposed legislation as an attack on freedom and liberty, but stealing’s not really a human right, is it?" She is concerned that emerging artists will be the ones to suffer if file-sharing goes unchecked.

Coming out in support have been Keane, James Blunt and, er, Gary Barlow, but still in the "undecided" bracket are Matt Bellamy of Muse (who came up with a series of interesting points here) and Natasha Khan of Bat For Lashes, who's having a bit of a think about the whole situation.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR ME?
Nothing - if you don't use peer-to-peer networks to swap copyrighted music. If you do, then if the government pass the new law, you could be in trouble. Or at the very least, without an internet connection. Nightmare.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Is Lily Allen right? Should all file-sharing be stopped? Or do you side with the FAC, and think that legal action will just drive the practice further underground? Maybe you think that buying and selling music now outdated and it all should be free? Let us know what you think, leave a comment below.

 

Tagged as Muse, Bat For Lashes, The Futureheads, Keane, Downloads

• send to a friend

add your comment

enter

your name*

your email

your comment

I have read and agreed to the terms and conditions and Xfm's privacy policy

* Please note that the name/alias you enter here will be displayed next to your message.

submit comment

comments

1. Erm, she should take her medicine... she lifted her blog post from someone else.
   
   http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-heroine-lilly-allen-is-a-copyright-hypocrite-090921/

   Posted by Joel on 22/09/2009 17:58:28 | report abuse

2. This could not be done without monitoring (spying on) everyone's internet traffic 24/7. So, next the government would want to monitor every phone conversation (to help stop terrorism/paedophiles etc). Then of course they would want to open and censor everyone's mail/email which might contain a DVD/attachment of illegal content or a terrorist master plan. Then people would be required to have a cortical processor surgically implanted to discourage "the wrong type of thoughts" and "nip crime in the bud". Thus the relentless pressure to erode our civil liberties in the name of security and corporate profits will continue until we all sleepwalk into a life of slavery, naturally we will be given assurances that it's all for our own good.
   
   "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

   Posted by Mark on 22/09/2009 16:54:38 | report abuse

3. I always thought the price of a cd was a massive rip off, yes artists should be paid for producing their work, but the technology has changed, the same way that records were superseded by cds. Mp3 are easily exchangeable and are just the next link in the chain of technology. If someone is talented, wants to make music and preform, then file sharing shouldnt stop them. The record industry are just like the banks, only concerned for their profits.

   Posted by adam on 22/09/2009 15:58:40 | report abuse