Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
People steal because they can't be bothered to pay for what they want, not because they feel ill-will at being asked to pay.

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. I'm sure people steal music for a whole raft of different reasons - however one common theme seems to be resentment towards big record labels, who in the internet age still have a massive stranglehold on media rights and distribution as well as creaming off a relatively huge proportion of the profits, compared to artists for example.

I think a lot of people are unsettled by the old fashioned model that's still in place, and begrudge the industry for not embracing positive change.

Ultimately the record labels (in the guise of the BPI in this case) don't want to admit that their overall role in the music industry is a lot less relevant than it once was. Clearly they feel threatened about their position and want to maintain the power they once had - it's just a shame they can't do this by providing positive changes that would benefit the consumer (and consequently themselves) rather than trying to impose draconian restrictions on consumers to stabilise their position in the short term.
 
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. I'm sure people steal music for a whole raft of different reasons - however one common theme seems to be resentment towards big record labels...
Ask a random 100 people who have downloaded copyrighted material why they chose to break the law and I'm betting you'll hear(if they give honest answers) up there in the popular answers will be;
"Because I have no money"
"Because I didn't want to pay"
"I didn't know it was wrong"
"Because I thought/knew I could get away with it"

"As an act of consumer protest" will not crop up very often.
 
I don't know about the U.K. but in most places in the U.S., it's illegal to cut off someone's access to "emergency services." (9-1-1 emergency). For example, if you are squabbling with your neighbor and just to be a pain you cut their phone line, you can be arrested.

If someone's only phone is a VoIP, I wonder if the ISP could face criminal or civil liabilities for cutting off internet service to satisfy a music company demand?
 
Ask a random 100 people who have downloaded copyrighted material why they chose to break the law and I'm betting you'll hear(if they give honest answers) up there in the popular answers will be;
"Because I have no money"
"Because I didn't want to pay"
"I didn't know it was wrong"
"Because I thought/knew I could get away with it"

"As an act of consumer protest" will not crop up very often.

It's been done, mpw. In a survey conducted by the Helsinki Institute for Information, 50% of P2P users would be willing to pay for a service with concerns including DRM-free, size of catalogue, and download limits. Harvard Business School determined that P2P has minimal real impact on music sales, and that many P2P users are in fact buying music. There is a tonne of information out there that demonstrates that it's not nearly as black and white as you are continually making it out to be.

"[The survey] shows that most people have used P2P networks in a way that many of us have: to find music that is actually worth buying," [Frost & Sullivan survey]

You cant explain theft away by saying people only steal because somethings locked away.

People steal because they can't be bothered to pay for what they want, not because they feel ill-will at being asked to pay.

A real solution to theft comes from honestly examining the causes, not good guy/bad guy cowboyism.
 
I'm curious - did anyone ever get (or know someone who got) one of these letters?

Edit: I just updated my blog with a post about this - would be interested to know if you have any comments :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.