1000 character limit, so this is going to be multi-part.

irstly, let's clear some terms up.

UK Theft Act, basic definition of theft:

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly.


"Stealing" music/movies and "pirating" music/movies are completely different: piracy does not result in the deprivation of property. A much more accurate term is "copyright infringement". The media industry tends to push the view that they are the same thing. Don't believe me? Put a DVD in your DVD player (not computer: chances are it'll be so heavily DRM-laden that you won't have the necessary rights to watch it on a proprietary player) and force yourself to watch the lengthy "would you steal a car?" anti-piracy propoganda. Well, I say "force" yourself to watch; you don't have the choice to skip it anyway.

[continued]

Craig Sutherland, Edinburgh,

[continued]

When you steal a car from someone, or a handbag from someone, you are depriving them of property. They lose and you gain. When you download a copyrighted file from a P2P network, you get a copy of it, and the person you downloaded it from gets to keep theirs too. Piracy is not stealing. Piracy is copyright infringement.

I don't condone the wanton piracy of copyrighted works, but I also do not condone the demonisation of the file-sharing community and the P2P protocol. P2P was widely in use before bittorrents (remember the first Quake back in 1996, anyone?), and in no way is P2P traffic a signpost of someone illegally distributing copyrighted material. Neither is filesharing inherently illegal, unless you're distributing copyrighted content without the right to distribute aforementioned content. There need to be clear definitions of what is meant by an "illegal file-sharer".

[continued]

Craig Sutherland, Edinburgh,

[continued]

Blanket terms and ignorance are just a few of the tools that the music and film industry take advantage of to achieve their own ends.

ISPs are not the people to blame for individuals committing copyright infringement. You cannot blame a service provider for misuse of the service in the same way that you couldn't blame Smith & Wesson for gun crime. I firmly believe that privacy is a right we are all entitled to, and private businesses (music/film industry) pressuring our ISP's to give this up for the supposed profit of the industry is frankly absurd. I can commit much more serious crimes over the phone, or by sending mail (snail, no e-!), yet our privacy in these methods of communication are rather heavily protected by law. I don't think any private business would dare suggest that all our mail should be opened and our phonecalls listened to just because we "might" be committing copyright infringement. Yet our ISPs are giving in, and no-one's making a stand against it.

Craig Sutherland, Edinburgh,

Am I the only person in this country who thinks that this is very, very, very wrong?

Craig Sutherland, Edinburgh,

I dont think its wrong. I think its progrees.

dave, Nottingham,