Brands
Events
March 25th, 2010 @ The Royal Garden Hotel, London
The third annual PCR Awards is set to be the social event of the year for anyone involved in the PC retail sector, and a well deserved celebration for the nominees.
Competitive Package
UK - London
Singer James Blunt backs tougher penalties for illegal downloaders
Singer and songwriter James Blunt has blasted ISPs for permitting file sharing, saying that they are “handling stolen goods.”
In a letter to the Times, the singer also stated his support for Peter Mandelson’s plans for tougher penalties, including disconnecting file sharers from the internet.
“The world over, people are stealing music in its millions in the form of illegal file sharing,” Blunt said in his letter. “It’s easy to do, and has become accepted by many, but people need to know that it is destroying people’s livelihoods and suffocating emerging British artists.”
Blunt praised the government’s tougher stance on file sharing, despite the fact that it flies in the face of its own Digital Britain report, as he feels that necessary to safeguard the British music industry.
“At long last the Government is looking to legislate to protect the industry,” Blunt continued. “Peter Mandelson is looking to engage the internet service providers who, in my opinion, handle stolen goods, and should take much more responsibility.
Advertisement
“How this legislation pans out, and if it goes through at all, is critical to the survival of the British music business; critical to thousands of jobs; and critical to our ability to nurture and develop great musicians and the songs and albums that we would hope to listen to in the future.”
However, the Featured Artists Coalition, which includes Tom Jones, Annie Lennox, Kate Nash, as well as members of Pink Floyd, Radiohead and Blur, has said that the tough measures to combat file sharing constitute a massive breach of privacy and would be disproportionate and unenforcable.
The organisation told the Times: “The power to demand suspensions of accounts is only achievable through a wide-scale invasion of personal privacy which we believe would result in a dangerous reduction in the rights to protection of the individual.
“We have negotiated in good faith with the labels all week, but they remain wedded to the idea of suspension of accounts. We remain steadfast in our belief that making threats against individual music fans is not an effective way to resolve any problems associated with file-sharing.”
How refreshing, another ivory tower celebrity idiot.
If I were a multi-millionaire I probably wouldn't mind paying £10-£15 a pop for the latest CD.. but if I was just another downtrodden ordinary citizen of the UK who has been taxed to death while working and insulted by the system now that I'm not, perhaps I would spend my £15 more wisely, like on food or bills.
The whole copyright issue would be a valid argument if the retail prices reflected costs of the goods. Many studies have shown that CDs could be priced much much lower and still provide profit/income; the current over-inflated prices are purely greed by all those involved in the music industry, Mr Blunt included.
To all those fat-cats pleading poverty over the supposed loss of sales, I say this.. HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
Then of course there is the argument that sales are not lost.. million seller albums are still common. The type of person likely to download their music is the person who would never have bought the CD in the first place. Had it not been available online, they would have got a copy from their mates.
The idea of treating people as criminals for file-sharing goes against the very notion of justice in this country, supposedly you are innocent until proven guilty. Take that idea forward and apply the concept of proving that an IP address equates to an individual responsible for downloading copyrighted content, and you are heading for a legal minefield, where the likelihood of actually getting an unbiased just decision is highly questionable.
The proposed three strikes system is wholly unworkable, and the authorities know it. The only possible alternative is a draconian system more likely to be found in a dictatorship than a democracy.. perhaps we should be questioning why we are treated like sheep being railroaded to a totalitarian society more reminiscent of George Orwells novels. It's about time our 'leaders' realised that 1984 was a work of fiction, not a template.
No matter how you dress it up, the theft of music - and computer software or games for that matter - is illegal, plain and simple. If you'd rather spend your money on "food and bills", then that's your choice. The fact that you can't or won't buy music doesn't give you the right to steal it and expect legal impunity. I have a great amount of sympathy for up-and-coming bands who are trying to establish themselves (a point that Blunt makes). Unfortunately many talented new acts are making very little money from CD or download sales thanks to internet piracy. Your argument that "the type of person likely to download their music is the person who would never have bought the CD in the first place" is total nonsense, and is a common argument reeled out time and time again by music, games and software thieves alike. The "three strikes" proposal may not be entirely foolproof, but something needs to be done to stop the wholesale theft of IP via the internet.
