Browse by topic

News

Brit artists debate UK Government file-sharing plans

22 September 2009 23:23 by James "Dela" Delahunty | 5 comments

British artists have been commenting on some proposed measures to tackle illegal file sharing of music in the region, with the likes of Radiohead and Annie Lennox being opposed, and Lilly Allen and James Blunt supporting. The debate is about the plan to force Internet Service Providers to punish "repeat offenders" by slowing down Internet connections, issue warnings and eventually cutting off a connection.

The Featured Artists Coalition, or FAC, which touts Annie Lennox, Radiohead and Robbie Williams among its members, is opposed to the plans. "By demanding blanket suspension powers from the government, the industry is in danger of cutting off a promotional tool that is of great use to fledgling artists who seek to create a buzz around themselves yet don't have the financial support of a major label," the group stated.

FAC went on to say that the proposed measures could not be possible without widespread invasion of personal privacy - but don't get it wrong, FAC is opposed to illegal file sharing itself, branding sites that benefit from it as "thieving rascals" that should be prosecuted. Lilly Allen however, disagrees with FAC, and has the backing of James Blunt in doing so.

"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 wrote. "The proposal is to look at P2P (peer-to-peer) sites -- which are public anyway -- to identify people who are acting unlawfully, so they can be asked, and then made, to stop. Not really an attack on civil liberties there."

Permalink to this article

Radiohead backs bandwidth throttling as music piracy solution (5 November 2009)

File sharers should have bandwidth 'squeezed', UK artists say (26 September 2009)

Lily Allen quits music following anti-piracy tirades (24 September 2009)

EB Games will not stock PSP Go either, in Australia (23 September 2009)

UK bands fight controversial three-strikes law (13 September 2009)

British pop stars want more power in the digital age of music (4 October 2008)

Rock group Marillion to offer new album for free through P2P (11 September 2008)

More downloaded Radiohead via P2P then free legal alternative (5 August 2008)

« Previous news article
Xbox 360 Elite for under $200 at Dell

Next news article »
Sega documents reveal March 2010 launch of PS3 motion control

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
emugamer (Member) 23 September 2009 12:29
You can call anything "stealing" thereby subjecting it to the law. The law is the law. If the law says that doing "A, B and C" is illegal, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. It's just a matter reasoning and discussing the absurdity of why it's illegal and discussing the absurdity of the penalties. Hopefully smart people who can think for themselves will gain some ground on making changes. Since it's apparantley a crime, is it victimless or not? One shouldn't cry victim if one has no proof that they've been victimized. "Hmmm.....internet file sharing has been on the rise, yet my latest single is selling better than I expected. Curse those fans and the internet file sharers!" "Hmmm...being a new artist, I didn't expect to do well, but my shows have been sold out and my sales have increased. Curse those fans and the internet file sharers! How dare they spread my music!" Focusing on how many times your song was shared may stroke your ego, as you then think that all of them love your music and kept it. If someone is just downloading for the heck of it, are they really the kind of person who would be willing to invest time and money into any artist? Is that the kind of fan artists are looking for? A fan that has no face...only a dollar sign. Art should be worth what people are willing to pay. And people who are willing to pay are the true fans that these artists should be playing for. It will be a sad day when "stealing" a glance is illegal. End of rant.... [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23 September 2009 12:35
jos22 (Newbie) 23 September 2009 13:25
so real artists are against it and manufactured pop shit ( james blunt) is for it. not a it surprised. [ + quote]
andypints (Newbie) 23 September 2009 13:48
Did anyone catch this article about Lilly Allen stealing someones elses work?? http://techdirt.com/articles/20090921/0527456270.shtml LMAO And don�t get me started on James Blunt, i�m sure thats the music the suspected terrorists are forced to listen to 24/7, so they�ll confess to wrong-doing... 10 minures of James Blunt and i�d tell them that i�m Osama Bin Laden... [ + quote]
atomicxl (Junior Member) 23 September 2009 13:58
"By demanding blanket suspension powers from the government, the industry is in danger of cutting off a promotional tool that is of great use to fledgling artists who seek to create a buzz around themselves yet don't have the financial support of a major label," They seem to be confused. I didn't read anything that suggested that you can't give away music for free. The only thing I read is that if people are stealing your music (ie getting it illegally to avoid paying for it legally) they will be punished. [ + quote]
Dark86 (Newbie) 23 September 2009 16:12
British music bands they willing to belly up to the music industry is no surprise since the people they working for will take away they right to have ownership of they own music kind like the people who think file sharing is equal to terrorists shows how corrupt a system can be file sharing is supporting terrorism butt lobbying isn't hmmm [ + quote]