Jail is easy...as long as the government can find the offenders. The authorities have to prepared to not only have effective laws but also have effective resources to make sure the law is respected. If hackers are the problem, hackers can be the solution. Fight fire with fire.

posted October 21, 2009

I'd say first evaluate what the social cost of piracy is.
Also, weigh the social benefits of piracy.
Then look at whether there are existing mechanisms for dealing with it, and estimate how successful they are.
Finally, with these pieces of information, determine whether anything needs to be done.

Note: I'm not a politician, and I'd never succeed at it. And in my opinion, being rational and even-handed probably won't get you votes.

posted October 21, 2009

Online piracy of what? Music? Movies? Software?

I would have thought the existing laws in the UK would contain sufficient language spelling out the legal remedies available to the copyright owners.

I admit ignorance of the UK laws in this regard, but assuming they are adequate, should not the enforcement of them be the normal mode of operation for any government?

posted October 21, 2009

Online piracy is inevitable and unstoppable, because digital goods can be infinitely distributed for almost no cost. And although the "almost" matters, it almost doesn't. The most counter intuitive thing to do would be to make it easier to copy and distribute digital goods, and to help businesses move towards new revenue models which focus around physical, social and psychological products and services which add value to free digital goods, and which cannot be downloaded. Some would argue - and I would be one - that a market move towards focus on revenue through non-downloadable items is ultimately inevitable, and therefore making it happen all the faster is a good thing.

So, an incoming government should:

1. Read "Free" by Chris Anderson
2. Bring together UK industry with an interest in online piracy together with Chris Anderson, Seth Godin, and (for an alternative view) Malcolm Gladwell.
3. Support industries in transition from online product revenue streams to physical / social / psyhological revenue streams.

Links:

• http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free
• http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/06/malcolm-is-wrong.html

Chris W. also suggests these experts on this topic:

• Alex D.
• JP R.
• Nicole Y.

posted October 21, 2009

Dont be two faced about this !
Why tackle online piracy and do nothing about child pornography on the internet, the ISP's have the tools and the know how to track these users down too but tend to focus more on online piracy...
As I said dont play the Hypocrite in this situation,

If you want to at least takes steps to resolving the piracy issue then first address the price of DVD's and music, after all this is the sole motivation for online pirates to distribute music or films for a real cheap price, but if you take away that motivation by being more realistic on price more people would move away from cheap and low quality copies in favour of the real deal

posted October 21, 2009

I agree with Chris Wild's point - the real key way to do this is to educate businesses into the realities of a globally connected digital world, and help them to understand that their old pricing models are just are not sustainable any more.

When the (mostly) Russian MP3 sites like allofmp3 and mp3stor etc were in their heyday, they were shipping product by the million at $1-2 per album, and people were willing to pay that because (a) they saw the price as reasonable, and (b) there was a thin veneer of semi-plausible legality to it.

There are vast numbers of people now who have been educated by the likes of the RIAA to avoid paying for for digital media. Their lawsuits have been hugely counter-productive as they have (a) drawn attention to the cornucopia of "free" media available on the net, primarily by P2P, and (b) drawn ridicule by the ludicrously inflated value ascribed to each digital item.

Conversely, there are a huge number of people who are basically law-abiding, and would prefer to purchase from a legitimate supplier, minus the risks of malware, but who are quite capable of understanding that an album purchased for £15 from iTunes is a huge rip-off, and so are not willing to pay that price. When the same album can be physically purchased in a supermarket for less than the cost of the digital version, and yet one whole layer of markup, all the manufacturing costs, and the vast majority of the distribution costs have been eliminated, it is pretty obvious that some profiteering is going on. People are willing to pay a fair price, but not at a special "digital-tax" rate that assumes they will pirate everything they download.

And finally - it is unfortunate for the record companies, in particular, that one of the impacts of the web is that it promotes disintermediation - which largely eliminates the need for record companies. While they are currently fighting a rear-guard action to preserve their days of plenty, ultimately, their business model has been comprehensively broken.

In summary - stop accepting everythinig the media copyright holders say - their claims of conequential loss from piracy are ludicrously inflated, and start looking at how new business models can be put in place which are to the benefit of both business and consumer

posted October 21, 2009

The word 'incoming' is irrelevant or spin and the word piracy, according to Wikipedia, is a war-like act committed by private parties at sea. However, I think I understand the question. The morals of most people are poor and if we think we can get something for nothing with little or no chance of punishment then we will. What's missing is the 'spirit' of honesty which is all about being true and good because we want to and 'doing the right thing' which is maybe where the MP expense claims came unstuck? If you can't convince everyone that on-line piracy is something they don't want to be part of then you must either make it technically difficult or a crime which will be punished. I think making it technically difficult is the better route. Imagine if a music track or movie would only play whilst the computer had internet access what could be achieved? If the secret service can 'listen' for key words on phone calls why can't specific filename downloads be tracked? Sponsor a challenge for all the propellor heads out there to create a solution with a massive prize to the winner. The IP owners would be only too happy to back a solution that defends their revenues.

posted October 21, 2009

posted October 21, 2009

I have investigated a number of forms of piracy, In the first instance lets look at the Music Industry, the incoming government and the music industry first of all need educating in this area. Look at viable alternatives and believe me there are some, and would be better for the music Industry and artists

I remember the public receiving letters that basically "fined them" because there IP address had been logged. If I recall something like £500.

If a member of the public contacted me regarding this action to investigate, the government would of listened.

So far they have not grasped the situation at all.

posted October 21, 2009

The answer to your question is "multi-tiered access".

The Internet is too pervasive nowdays to just turn it off the way the media companies would like it to happen as per the 3 strike ideas. You may have just turned off that person's emergency phone line, alarm or stopped the utility from reading his meter.

Further to this the evidence provided by media companies so far in support off their campaigns have been dubious at best and in almost all cases tied up to a computer not a person. Their losses (theoretical and real) are also a drop in the ocean compared to other problems that can be solved via multi-tiered access. Phishing, credit card fraud, SPAM botnets, Denial of service, virus proliferation all eat more out of the UK GDP than the media company losses due to file sharing.

This all can be solved via multi-tiered access. Further to this, multi-tiered access and moving the consumer to a limited access has proven to be the right way of doing this over the years. There is no principal difference between a consumer which is file-sharing or has a botnet infestation and a consumer that has overrun his credit. We did not go and try to beat him up before, right? We moved him to a lower access tier and had his access to premium services barred until he pays up.

This can be automated, reasonably consumer friendly and can be implemented at the current technological level. Further to this, instead of revenue loss for all participants it is a potential revenue. So you may actually gain some traction on this.

Oh, and by the way, in the place where I come from they have a saying "Do not try to divide the hide of the bear which is still in the woods". You have not won the election yet.

Anton I. also suggests these experts on this topic:

• Giles H.
• Nigel T.

posted October 21, 2009

Ed,

I suspect that this will not actually be on the top of your agenda when / if you get in next year, as there are many other issues that need to be addressed, that you might find are more pressing. However...

I think that what you have in mind are the sites such as Pirate Bay that allow the free sharing of files, some of which are not intended for free distribution. The record lables get very upset about this as they see it as lost revenue.

However, you have to bear in mind that they are in fact just as guilty - most of them use some free distribution of music / video as a "teaser" to encourage people to find out about new artists or new material. Many of them also support the promotion of the devices that allow the swapping / sharing of files - perhaps a touch hypocritical?

They will argue that they lose a lot of money from the downloads - and yes they probably do lose some. However, their argument that every download is a lost sale is completely specious - no-one can say for definite, but it is highly likely that many of the downloads are done by people that would not have paid for the music anyway. The loss to the big companies is considerably less than they would have you believe.

They will also try make the point that the loss of revenue means that they will be unable to invest in new talent. Hogwash and other phrases - they actually spend considerably less on "developing" new talent then they would have you know. Most of it goes on promoting the current crop of artists - I would suggest that many of these actually have limited talent.

In fact, there are many struggling / new artists that do not have the benefit of a record company contract and many of these produce some really good material. By being able to provide a download free, they can in fact then gain a following for minimal cost. And I would imagine that if an artist has any real talent, the word will go out about them and if sufficient people start to get an interest, the record lables could then find themselves a new artist for their portfolio.

posted October 21, 2009

adressing piracy is difficult. Lets say for example If I were to leave my new corvette in a busy parking lot unattended with the keys in it and the engine running, then someone got into it and drove off with it. Would it be piracy?
So if I leave my new software on the internet with the program running and the code inside of it and someone downloaded it would it still be piracy?

posted October 21, 2009

Firstly can I say that I think asking the question in this way and using the technology available to get a range of responses is to be commended.

1. A legal framework is essential to define the crime of 'theft' of digital assets, but it mostly exists. It is not a new lawlessness that has created the problem of piracy, but rather a change in technology for delivering entertainment. I would urge policymakers to look to the technology to help solve the problems the technology has created. Stimulating new technology solutions within UK is good policy: it helps generate new UK intellectual property creation and new UK employment opportunities. By way of background, I have spent a good deal of time working in this area. I have been investing in companies that attempt to ensure content providers get paid on-line since 1995 when I lived in Palo Alto.

2. I don't think fans do want to steal music. They just want the music. There is an educational aspect to this both for the fans but also for the rights owners. This week, for example, saw the first simultaneous release on-line and on radio of a top performing artist. Rihanna released her new single on-line exclusively on we7 and on radio. Previously there would have been a period of radio only 'pre-marketing' exposure. The temptation to post illegal copies is much reduced if the content is accessible legally on-line at the same time in an easy to find, easy to share manner without the barrier of having to do more than search the web. After all, the illegal pirate sites have not actually been that easy to use, and have often come with the hidden cost of mal ware infections. Providing commercially a 'better free' product than is to be found in illegal sites attacks the root of the problem. Legal sites can afford to invest in the user experience in a way that illegal sites cannot.

3. Subscriptions don't tackle the root cause of piracy. The music industry has not been as flat-footed as it is sometimes wrongly portrayed. The industry has collectively decided that renting music via subscriptions is a large part of the answer to their declining revenues from physical media. And I have no doubt that it has a part to play. But changing how fans pay away from once-off payments for ownership into a recurring payment for rental does not to me tackle the root cause of piracy. It is important to remember when considering these issues that iPod/iPhone owners are not the mass market: not when compared with the population of web users. The mass market on the whole can't or won't download an application on-line. To tackle piracy at its root and address the mass market the solution must be as easy to use as Google, require no registration for a basic service, require no application download, and be free to the user. Then there is no incentive to steal.

4. That does not mean that there is no revenue to be had.
I started we7 in UK in 2008 with the intention of providing a legal free service funded by advertising. Initially I boot-stapped it myself. The PRS signed the first advertising funded music contract with us (then known as Mediagraft). The UK Govt. provided an Innovation Award R&D grant, and Peter Gabriel invested in the company. It now has a professional management team and has created 30 jobs so far. it was not an accident that we7 started life in UK. In UK we have world class advertising talent and world class music talent, both within music creation and the music industry. UK has a natural advantage in this area. We have world class search technologists (Autonomy et al) and world class content protection technologists (nCipher and others).

So my recommendation would be to encourage rights owners to view 'free' content as a significant part of the solution and to set music rates to allow the advertising funded model to work. Then let the technology massively increase volumes legally, some of which will no doubt be up-sold to buy or rent.

John Taysom

Links:

• http://www.we7.com

posted October 22, 2009

Assuming we are talking about music and possibly games/films/TV here rather than domain hijacking or theft of IP from company servers. That being the case, the Scylla and Charybdis of compulsory licensing and 'graduated response' should be equally resisted.

The creative industries should be encouraged to take a 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' approach to licensing so that they can't pick winners or only license in return for equity in their licensee. There's plenty of precedent for this in the 'fair trading' framework that could be applied online.

A review of relationships and contracts within the creative industries might offer a few pointers towards reform. That would be good in itself, and could also have a collateral benefit in enabling the stakeholders to work together better. Systematic infringements of rights by rights holders themselves, along with large pools of 'black box' income, do not foster a united and confident industry.

Ultimately the creative industries need wholesale markets or exchanges in order to deal efficiently with their new digital trading partners. There are too many rights holders, too many rights, and the value of each right is too dynamic to be managed adequately by direct licensing. Users of creative rights need to know that they can obtain rights at a market rate, and keep the value that they create through innovation in consumer services.

Reform on that scale is not easy; 'nudging' would probably not be enough. But perhaps some strengthening of creators' rights would ensure that there is greater need for robust and transparent rights and metadata management. And that, along with a concerted push towards a strong 'fair trading' licensing regime, would between them create enough momentum for the market to start to work properly again.

posted October 22, 2009

First off, please can we stop wrapping all this up under the easy to label name of "Piracy" , call by what it's supposed to be:

Software theft, Intellectual property theft but not Piracy.

We've had similar things before....

Hacker vs Cracker anyone?

I'm a white hat hacker, does that mean I'm one of the bad guys.. NO?

Likewise I share (Legal files) on P2P, and when I fire up my client, and I see lots of Illegal files in my search results, does that mean I'm a pirate? NO...

If the government are going to address this, then one of the first things they need to do is be willing to spend the money on a accurate detection system, and not just go after a person beacuse the name of an Illegal song turned up attached to their IP address, or beacuse someone thinks they use too much data.

To illustrate what I mean, I have a very good friend who runs a very successful Online internet radio station. To date he has been cut off twice, both times in mid broadcast, why?

Beacuse someone looking at his bandwidth and data usage, made the assumption that beacuse of the amount of data moving across his connection, he was an illegal file share.

If the investigating party had simply used methods like statetfull packet inspection, they would have seen that his data usage was mainly shoutcast streams and not P2P network streams.

Also, if this is going to be seen as a crime, then make it a criminal act, If I walked into a music store picked up an album and walked out with it, then I'd be prosecuted under criminal law for "Theft from a shop" so if your going to call these people "Thieves" then go after the actual Thieves and not just those of us who happen to get caught in the cross fire.

I've not always been on the good side of the law in the world of IT, and my youth was a largely shady affair, and I can say this now with absolutely no doubt, those who share files for profit, don't care what measures you put in place, they'll still do it, and for the best part if you don't start using proper detection methods to catch them, then you never will, you'll just keep getting joe schmo who's download an album or two to see what it's like, or people like me who's IP address gets reported beacuse a song name was seen in some search results.

As for film & video and for that matter music. I have a huge collection of MP3's, movies and TV programs, and yes a ton of them I've never been to a shop and bought, how do I have them well thats easy... I have a one of these new media PC's, and I have it hooked up to my Sky digital system.

I can record anything I like off freeview and keep it for ever, and by typing in my PIN code and allowing a one off charge of £2 to £4 to be added to my sky bill, | can get top rate new release movie's too, does this mean I'm guilty of robbing the music industry of it's profits? well as far as I care, no... but I'm willing to bet the music industry people out there would have you believe I am.

Anyway, rant over...

Summing UP.

A) Better detection methods
B) Go after the big fish, leave the users alone
C) Stop listening to companies and peer groups who think they know what's going on when they don't
D) if your going to address it as a crime, treat it like a crime... no half measures... if it's "Software theft" treat it as theft, and let the police deal with it.

If you want to follow up on my rantings, then you may want to read an article I previously published on my blog.

http://cid-4515677bdf99b35f.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4515677BDF99B35F!268.entry

posted October 22, 2009

There are several steps necessary.
1. Get elected so you have to power to change things
2. Realise that identity management is one of the biggest key enablers of the 21st century for many things and has enormous value.
3. Realise that privacy is important and must be respected.
4. Realise the link between passports, identity cards and identity management.
5. Realise that this must be handled by government to avoid abuse.
6. Make access to legitimate content easy
7. Make the pricing realistic
8. Implement licence encryption systems, role for the content syndicator
9. Realise that the planned 2mb limit for broadband is totally inadequate
10. Understand that this is a global problem/opportunity
11.Engage me on a consultative basis to provide a full report

regards :-)

Links:

• http://www.globesprintmedia.com

posted October 22, 2009

If the aim is eradicate online piracy, I would say that is about imposiible because the source of the pirated material can be located on servers anywhere on the planet and well out of reach of UK government enforcement.
I would tackle this by having a team that identified such unlawful websites and either influenced or legislated to have UK ISP's block these websites. The team would consist of ISP's themselves, eg FACT, movie industry representatives, Microsoft and Google for example. The expected output of this team is the URL's t be blocked. This is just a first thought and would need refined. The alternative is to prosecute offenders downloading. This should be focused on the offenders who are out to make large commercial gains as usualy there are other crimes being committed by the commercial piracy eg putting downloaded movies onto DVD's and selling them in markets. Usually tax evasion is included here too! This two pronged approach is my suggestion an clearly needs refining and developing to become a workable plan.

posted October 23, 2009

It's not the government's problem - If I left the engine running in my car and left the car parked outside my house and it was stolen, it is a crime, but it's my fault the car was stolen. So yes - people steal, because they can - it's up to the owner to secure.

posted October 23, 2009

Tell the record industry etc to update their business models and stop whinging. It was once taxes on tapes, now its intervention on online sharing. In fact a great many artists are finding new marketing opportunity and access to market that the very same corporates wouldn't have looked at before. The creative industries are changing. If the Conservative Party aren't innovative and real all it will be doing is supporting contemporary luddites.

posted October 23, 2009

In my opinion, there are probably three broad arenas in which a future government could potentially (subject to short-term funding priorities which may be considerable), do more to help businesses and individuals to deal with online piracy and as a result contribute positively to the UK economy in the medium to long term:

1. Research - needs to be carefully directed, focused and timely, but is necessary to establish an authoritative, rational and understandable basis for other measures

2. Legal framework - legal concepts and definitions (not only in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but also in the EU) and have simply not kept pace with online reality so need to be refreshed and extended to define the digital data rights and obligations of individuals, government agencies and commercial service providers and, where necessary, to provide new civil and criminal remedies.

3. Service Provision - enabling provision of access to appropriate services, ideally through public/private partnerships - promoting access by individuals and organisations to trustworthy online support services, including both infrastructure services (identity/trust/content filtering) and personal/professional services. Future strategy for facilitating service provision should in my view address:
- high level services targeted mainly at the UK's international trading partners in the EU, US, Commonwealth and elsewhere - engagement in international standards development, development of common online citizen interaction frameworks, cooperation on incident reporting etc
- mid level services targeted mainly at UK-based companies - legal/policy advice and guidance, assistance with commercial audit/investigation etc
- grass roots level services targeted mainly at individuals - provision of IT education, registration/qualification of companies and individuals involved in providing computer services etc

Trusting that this personal perspective is useful.

posted October 23, 2009

Make music more affordable.. Make music legally downloadable through different medium.. Make it easy for younger people to buy who may not necessarily have online payment methods to pay for music..
If piracy and music sharing is rampant amongst younger users, it is because they may not have spending power..

I dont think people intend to steal or think of it as that.. they have to be educated young..

I like Ed Wawrzaszek's analogy .. the only way this differs is that when someone copies music from my system, I am not losing it.. In the car example, when someone takes my car, I dont have the car anymore.. Sume total is constant.

I dont condone piracy or sharing.. but I do know many teens and youngsters and do see a pattern in this

Also people for years have been used to listening to music or radio, tv, walkman and many people may not yet comprehend the distinction difference between seeing or hearing it on a device at their homes and actually owning it to hear it when they want and where they want

posted October 23, 2009

Firstly, I dont think Piracy can be separated from other crimes, it is a subset and category, priorities need to be set, I think the question should be more on the lines of

'what is the best way to define accountability and responsibility for behaviour and transactions online, who is accountable for resolution and what is the level of punishment, what are the priorities'.

A strategy/guidelines needs to be developed and tactical solutions deployed quickley.

eg, Piracy takes place either physically copying DVD's and selling on a street corner or downloading whats the difference, in terms of penalty..?, there is one benefit online and that is payment for a pirated copy can be caught, is this an Industry and government issue interms of resources?, I would say Industry, this is more a civil matter if its an individual, if its a mass fraud and business then its Government and legal like in the physical world today.

other extreme,

Anything to do with Child Pornography, is definately government and legal system regardless of level of crime, and the penalties need to be harsh.

I think the first thing would be to define where the individual/company has accountability and responsibility and where the Government and legal system have accountability and responsibility, a situation of big brother should not be implemented online / however guidelines need to be put inplace, this is not an easy task but can be acheived. If you like an online legal system needs to be developed as the rules are different to the physical legal system, today we wait until the online crime is converted to the physical before action is taken in most cases, i think we need to be more proactive here.

this is just my humble view, my biggest concern is the balance between personal accountabilities and Government/Legal, once this is resolved then the way to attack Piracy would be resolved.

by the way, the same should apply to SMS, Email and any other digital media etc....

posted October 23, 2009

The first thing to do is to address the fallacy that every download is the equivalent of a "lost" sale. Many people will download media that they wouldn't (if they had to pay for it) ever consider buying, such as independent films or albums and songs from unsigned bands.

On top of that there are numerous studies that show that people who download music and film illegally are also much more likely to be purchasing music and films legally at far higher levels than normal consumers.

I'm not a supporter of the "Pirate Party" by any stretch of the imagination but it does seem that there are more than adequate laws already in place to deal with those who pirate movies, albums and games on a commercial basis.

Tackle the serious criminals first (e.g. those that are using the illegal profits garnered from piracy to fund terrorism and organised crimality) and stop trying to work out ways to criminalise normal downloaders would be my suggestion...

posted October 23, 2009

I just wanted to say that I'm quite impressed by this use of Linkedin by a political party as the demographic found here is well placed to give excellent opinion.

For my part at times this whole debate feels more like an issue with an industry reluctant to face change and hence adapt its business model. Intellectual Property is now of increased and increasing importance to businesses as a commercial asset but it can sometimes be difficult to realise the value in those assets and so litigation is the inevitable outcome of the ironic lack of ideas. But it is human nature to want to preserve the status quo (an arguable reason for the current UK postal strikes) and encouraging change can often be difficult.

The problem for the media sector as a whole is that the Internet has ensured that the general public has become accustomed to getting content for free and trying to persuade people otherwise will be extremely difficult (just consider Murdoch's after the horse has bolted thinking in respect to charging for online newspaper content). There are plenty of legal ways of receiving media online for nothing - from Spotify to the BBC iPlayer and so if this is the norm it might feel for some that is unreasonable when content is charged for. However, there should be ways of monetising free content that arguably have not been exploited - product placement; sponsored content; advertising contained between tracks on music albums. I appreciate that advertising is obtrusive at times but it may ultimately be accepted by the public as a better alternative to the illegal version.

posted October 23, 2009

Stop trying to fight the technology and don't pursue any course of action that criminalises users.

Work instead with businesses to find ways to accommodate file sharing in a way that generates revenue that can be paid back to the licence holders

posted October 23, 2009

You could ask the service providers to do more regarding trusted sites and related standards but you can't expect them to keep taking on tasks and not changing their prices.
They would be the best people to speak to regrding a way forward i.e. how practical a solution would be. As it is the practise of the soltuion that is the important factor, a rule maybe defined and implemented that is quickly circumvented.
Indeed look at this question I'm replying to who I think is a shadow minister but I have no way of knowing who you are. Validation of your information would need to be processed somewhere the only common denominator I can see is the service providers.
Whether by passport or ID card number against a central database all providers provide data to and from. Similar trusted sites could be managed in a similar way.

posted October 23, 2009

The government was too slow to react to the issues of online piracy and as such pirates are way ahead of the curve. There is a whole generation of people who have never had to pay for their music, their DVC’s and other Online content, and this behaviour is probably pretty deeply engrained. The Government making a public example of some unfortunate soul unlucky enough to have been caught downloading the latest episode of 24 does little in my mind to deter piracy and change these behaviours.

Personally I see the issue of piracy (illegally stealing and physically owning) content becoming less of an issue as we become more accustomed to using streaming as a means of consuming digital content such as film, TV and Music. I think physical ownership of content (particularly music and less so film) will become less important as people shift to consume ‘on demand’. Therefore for me, the best thing the government could do is look forward at emerging trends and try and manage the future not the past.

I’d want to see the government support blue-chip start ups such as Spotify who offer credible, good quality alternatives to illegal downloads, and also invest in the countries infrastructure particularly Mobile / Public WiFi access so people so they can access legitimate (paid for) content on the go. If we had a open network of WiFi covering of major conurbations, why would I download the latest Coldplay album when I can listen to the entire back catalogue whilst mobile?

For me, the government will be fighting a losing battle trying to combat current issues of piracy and make small gains, they’d be better off looking at how we will consume media in the future and work with technology providers to deliver what the consumer wants through an effective and funded model.

posted October 23, 2009

Understand better why people do it in the first place. Go and ask those that do it why and find out what would make them stop.

I would like to see an incoming government not get dragged down the route of making ISP's responsible for policing this problem. There will never be enough certainty to ensure that someone's connection is not being illegally "hijacked", and the cost of authorities policing the situation is just a financial non-starter.

The rise of services such as Spotify signal a new method of how in the future we might pay for music, and at £10 a month, the cost of just one CD, it offers incredible value. But look at how many people that downloaded the App. from Apple Store moaned at the £10 per month premium access fee, that gave them the ability to listen to and download from over four million available tracks, LEGALLY!

People's concept of what they are prepared to pay for today has completely changed, and the entertainment industry will have to find new ways of dealing with the consumers ever changing expectations.

I have a lot of musician friends and I believe they should be paid for their creativity, but even they all understand that things are changing and the industry will need to find new ways to maximise their revenue streams. Spare a thought for the new artists, they are the real losers in this situation. As record company turnover and profit falls, less money is spent on developing new artists and we all run the risk of missing out on some great new music.

An incoming government should do what you are doing now, and not just on this issue. You have to engage with people at all levels and get a true picture of the problems, and the cause of those problems. You have to better understand what the objectives and realistic expectations are in tackling the issue of online piracy.

I wish you luck and commend your use of technology in widening what is a very prickly subject in the entertainment industry.

posted October 23, 2009