Browse by topic

News

File sharers should have bandwidth 'squeezed', UK artists say

26 September 2009 14:32 by James "Dela" Delahunty | 15 comments

A meeting that was called for British musicians to discuss UK government proposals on how to tackle illegal file sharing has come to a consensus that file-sharers should have their bandwidth "squeezed" for persistent copyright infringement. The congregation of more than 100 artists came to the agreement that file sharers should not have their Internet accounts suspended.

Artists including Lily Allen, George Michael, Annie Lennox, Radiohead guitarist Ed O'Brien and Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason signed a statement. It calls for two warning letters to be issued to users when they are caught sharing music illegally before their bandwidth speeds are restricted for certain purposes.

The idea would be to "render sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic e-mail and web access functional." Lily Allen, who was the target of quite a large amount of criticism for running her mouth on the issue while technically breaching copyright law on the exact same website, was applauded by the audience for her campaign to "alert music lovers to the threat that illegal downloading presents to our industry."

Jim Killock, executive director of digital rights activists the Open Rights Group, said that the artists had addressed the symptom, but not the cure, adding that the only answer was to "license products to compete with file-sharing." However, he said major labels are being too cautious to approve some new services.

Permalink to this article

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

Apple App Store hits 2 billionth download (28 September 2009)

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

Brit artists debate UK Government file-sharing plans (22 September 2009)

« Previous news article
PS3 sales hold up in Japan

Next news article »
NPD says Blu-ray going mainstream next year

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
miketrev (Senior Member) 26 September 2009 15:32
LOL, not if the FCC has owt to do with it. [ + quote]
fgamer (Member) 26 September 2009 18:09
OK, and why would the person still pay average price for their service to have dial-up like speeds? I'm sure that'd run the customer away just the same as cutting them off. "miketrev" I thought the FCC is U.S. based only!! [ + quote]
H_Seldon (Newbie) 26 September 2009 18:15
What is the threat Lily? That the quality of music will go down? It can't go any further down Lily? When music was far cheaper than the record industry moguls have made it since the 1980's, it was far superior, original and 'entertaining' than it has been. What will happen is that the ISPs will lose millions of dollars while the performing artists will not see an increase in income, especially the ones who become known for having caused people's internet service to be disrupted. Rather than threaten the people who ARE listening to their music, these simpletons need to get away from the labels, and sell their music online at a decent price with super fast download speeds. [ + quote]
Hopium (Newbie) 27 September 2009 4:44
lily quit directly after this and said she will no longer make music cause she is dumb and didnt know what she was talking about [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 27 September 2009 10:37
sigh people have the right to share period, however they do not have the right to sell, if you don;t like this ideal get a real job and get out of media. [ + quote]
windsong (Junior Member) 27 September 2009 13:32
Stupid c^&#@ would like nothing better than to have everyone just SIGN in with their right hand and check their censored websites and approved emails. No Usenet, Freenet, P2P, Torrents, YouTube, or blogs. Those dinosaurs should just go DIE in a corner somewhere. [ + quote]
zenno (Newbie) 27 September 2009 17:36
what drugs are these artists on. squeezing peoples bandwidth lol thats unconstitutional. and any provider that cooperates with this garbage are insane in the membrane. when will this crap end [ + quote]
GryphB (Junior Member) 27 September 2009 20:13
DON'T TASE ME BRO! [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27 September 2009 20:13
DXR88 (Senior Member) 28 September 2009 13:55
*Originally posted by GryphB:* DON'T TASE ME BRO! Only in America. in the uk its more like. DONT SHOOT ME BRO!! [ + quote]
kscogg (Newbie) 28 September 2009 15:18
there are bands that would give their music away to gain notoriety, for instance the beatles would give singles away at their shows early on. everyone knows bands don't make that much from cd sales, they bank on touring and merchandise sales. i wish they'd quit kidding themselves about sharing. Radiohead gave their last album away for practically nothing, same with The Smashing Pumpkins. The Flaming Lips are doing something similar with their latest. Hopefully more bands start to "get it". You can't shut us down, sharing must go on! [ + quote]
windsong (Junior Member) 28 September 2009 17:13
*Originally posted by kscogg:* there are bands that would give their music away to gain notoriety, for instance the beatles would give singles away at their shows early on. NIN founder Trent Reznor would hide his stuff in bathrooms at concerts for the fans to discover. [ + quote]
kscogg (Newbie) 28 September 2009 18:18
thats the way it should be. douchebags like metallica who cried and punished people for sharing prolly lost a lot of fans over it. [ + quote]
KillerBug (Senior Member) 29 September 2009 5:21
*Quote:* *Originally posted by kscogg:* there are bands that would give their music away to gain notoriety, for instance the beatles would give singles away at their shows early on. NIN founder Trent Reznor would hide his stuff in bathrooms at concerts for the fans to discover. He also released the last album for free, as well as the first disk of the album before that. He has personaly uploaded numerous live performance video torrents, as well as "Bootlegs" that are super-high quality, sometimes in FLAC 5.1 (these are not technicaly bootlegs, as they are recorded directly from the sources, not from the speekers). He has even gone so far as to upload the dvd versions of some of the older VHS releases, and then saying that he did it so that they do not need to charge the fans for the cost of DVD pressing, and that fans should not feel guilty for downloading it though file sharing services! This all seems to have inspired The Smashing Pumpkins, who are about to release 11 LP's worth of their new music for free as well. It seems that Nine Inch Nails and The Smashing Pumpkins both know that they make a lot more money giving their music away while playing to an oversold stadium, than hording their music while being refused by larger venues that they do not have the fanbase for. I hope to see more musicians following this paturn in the near future...Marilyn Manson and David Bowie both seem to be prime candidates. [ + quote]
HackYuji (Newbie) 1 October 2009 8:54
Lily Allen is simply a joke, nobody cares what she has to say anymore, but when radiohead steps in its some serious buisness. [ + quote]
townliar (Newbie) 1 October 2009 12:56
Why are people listening to musicians? they are no more important than traffic wardens if my braodband was cut I would switch providers, pick up on an unprotected network or use an internet cafe there are loads of ways around it. Is it not the same as recording every episode of lost on a sky box? or as we all did in the old days recvord top of the pops on a sunday night? They invent machines to do things then want to ban what they do! As for lilly allen....Lily who? RIP Lily [ + quote]