Pirate Bay Block 'Ineffective'

The UK ban on access to the Pirate Bay has failed, according to one of the ISPs who took part in the block.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
6

Blocking the Pirate Bay in the UK has proved ineffective, according to figures revealed to the BBC.

The popular file-sharing site was blocked on five major UK internet service providers (ISPs) in May.

One of them has anonymously revealed that file sharing dropped by more than 11% following the ban, but the drop was short-lived:

"We saw a fall at the time of the block, made more dramatic by the increasing amount of such traffic in the weeks leading up to it," said the source. "But volumes are already pretty much back to where they were before."

The figures do not specify which file sharing sites are being used - meaning that access to the Pirate Bay may have dropped, but its users may have found alternatives to continue sharing files.

Leader of the Pirate Party UK, Loz Kaye, says that blocking is "an ineffective method. It's not in any way productive. Anyone who knows anything about how the internet works can get around it."

Speaking for the British Phonographic Industry which supported the ban, Geoff Taylor said they will take further steps to combat file sharing site owners who "line their pockets by ripping off everyone who makes the music we enjoy."

Taylor adds that the Pirate Bay was previously one of the top 50 sites in the UK, but has dropped to 282 since the ban. He says the battle against copyright infringement will continue.

What do you think? Can copyright holders ever win their battle against file sharing, or will streaming services like Spotify prove itself as an alternative? Share your opinion in the comments.

58 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    tntero
    Why do i ALWAYS read British Pornographic Industry?!?
    iommi600
    Said it in the previous article about copyright issues... Going blindly against the internet is just plain useless. Yes, something needs to be done about piracy, but come on, people's will to download stuff for free is way bigger than any lawyer behind the entertainment industry.
    Daburcor
    "Pirate Bay Block 'Ineffective'" And a resounding "No shit!" was heard by all.
    Smegal
    No. I wrote a huge blog on this issue a month or two ago, Their main gripe is they don't understand how to use these sites to their advantage. There are various models such as the "Try before you buy" which can fully use these sites to the producers advantage, given that many studies have found the largest demographic of music purchases come from the people who "illigally" download them. The reason for this is simple, we have more music than ever to listen to with the internet being available worldwide now. People can use technology to create music in their own homes. With this in full swing people wanna know they like something before buying it. They do this by finding somewhere that has it (And more often than not you can only find mainstream music on things like spotify, given I have not been able to find gravel trap anywhere). Oddly enough it's other music fans that place these torrents up on sites like the piratebay and this allows people to find music they would NEVER have heard otherwise. And considering this is the demographic most likely to buy the music they download this is a good thing for the music industry NOT the scapegoat they claim it to be.
    chinny1991
    Thanks to the internet, last fm, spotify etc. I listen to a wide range of music that I otherwise would never have come across. I may not have payed for the music (not that any of it is available on the high street) but I pay to go see bands live, i spend money on merch, bands often release special edition vinyl, thats cool, thats stuff you can't download, its worth spending money on. but if I had never heard of the band in the first place, they wouldn't have any of my money. So I'm all for filesharing, I'm sorry if the mainstream artists, who are well off anyway, aren't getting as much money as they're used to.
    Prometh3us
    Geoff Taylor said they will take further steps to combat file sharing site owners who "line their pockets by ripping off everyone who makes the music we enjoy."
    Does anyone else remember Matt Heafy posting the picture of his whopping royalty check a month after In Waves came out? No, Geoff Taylor, we aren't ripping off everyone who makes the music we enjoy, we're ripping off the fat cats who sit in their offices all day taking all the money that the artists make for them while the artists make just enough from concert and merch sales to pay the bills.
    Gexzilla
    I'm all for pirate bay and the Internet free of censorship or boundaries, like it used to be.
    tukk04
    "The British Phonographic Industry" This issue is out of their jurisdiction, according to their name they only have power over vinyl.
    iommi600
    There are various models such as the "Try before you buy" which can fully use these sites to the producers advantage, given that many studies have found the largest demographic of music purchases come from the people who "illigally" download them.
    That's why I think that Last.fm is a wonderful tool in today's music world. You actually get to "try before you buy" without ****ing up the artist, since still many people that download stuff illegally won't buy the original stuff. Fully agreed with "they don't understand how to use these sites to their advantage.". Been saying this for quite some time now.
    Lh0o
    There are about 100 proxy sites for TPB, trying to block it is desperate
    beineken
    disingenuous wrote: Pirate bay is way smarter than the government. And the whole thing about lining their pockets? oh yeah sharing music for free is way more money grabbing than the companies who care nought for their listeners and only for their money. You people are fools, music will always be free, and all musicians who are worth anything should understand this; music is made for enjoyment, not for money.
    First of all, the whole thing about "lining their pockets" is VERY true; file sharing sites make boatloads of cash through advertising, and they use artists' intellectual property to do so. This is my biggest quip with file sharing: the industry went from record labels getting the biggest cut to file sharing sites and ISPs getting the biggest cut, and the artist remains boned. "...all musicians who are worth anything should understand this; music is made for enjoyment, not for money." All music fans who are worth anything should understand this: making music COSTS money, not enjoyment.
    jamie_hough
    disingenuous wrote: Pirate bay is way smarter than the government. And the whole thing about lining their pockets? oh yeah sharing music for free is way more money grabbing than the companies who care nought for their listeners and only for their money. You people are fools, music will always be free, and all musicians who are worth anything should understand this; music is made for enjoyment, not for money.
    I agree with the first half of your statement, but certainly not the second. You cant float the 'music is art and should be free for all to enjoy" argument, particularly with the music industry the way it is now. Yes its a wonderful idea that musicians could have this huge credibility whereby they dont want paying for their work - but remember, although we all get into this for the love of it, for many it turns into just that - work. And we all need a way to pay the bills - even Adele and all that crap started as a way to make a few quid, then the record companies come swinging in on Satans bellend to take as much as possible. I beleive that sites like youtube (moreso than pirate bay) offer the consumer a great little taste of what they can buy and works to sift through any crap. The record companies just get miffed becasue pre-internet they used to be able to shovel any old crap onto you and you had no choice but to buy the album - if you didnt like it tough, they still got your money so they didnt care. I dont think theres much to worry about though - test the water of artists/bands you like by using torrent sites responsibly, if you like what you hear, support the band and buy the album - it isnt difficult and for the most part I think people abide by this.
    TheExterminator
    purplexing wrote: Just like dyerseve30 said, people usually buy 1 song for every hundreds that they download.
    So? You could buy a band's entire discography, but if you aren't seeing them live, and you're not buying stuff from their merch vendors, and your money is not going directly to the band, never claim you are supporting them.
    Smegal
    Okay looks like i have a double reply to make. Firstly lets reply to @purplexing. Your fault with your arguement lies in your assumption everyone is like you. Scientific studies have gathered enough evidence to state that the largest demographic of REAL purchases come from people who admit to downloading illegally. This is not a 100% demographic either, many people will not illegally download music nor will they steal it. A lot of people have a good heart and to be perfectly honest I have not downloaded an album in probably 5 years now, the one I did download was streetlight manifesto and guess what, I purchased their album when I actually found it. (Not an easy task mind you). If I make you feel repugnant then read my post again, I don't make assumptions, I'm educated enough to only work on fact. Your problem is you assume people are like yourself. Okay next. @dyerseve30 Firstly there is a significantly wider range of music on torrent sites than there are on music retailers online. This is sadly a fact because they work on gathering mainstream acts and this means their choces are limited. I quoted the word "Illegally" because I was using it as an ironic tense. Essentially they are saying it is a bad thing altogether and I was stating that there was an alternative action by embracing it, thus throwing into doubt whether the legality of it should be questioned. And just so you know the largest demographic of real purchases are from people who admit to downloading, this isn't to say that the "decline" in music sales is a problem though. When you take into account digital sales the music industry isn't doing half bad. I speak as a musician and games developer, I feel this effect two-fold, so for your information i am using my head, as I previously stated I wrote a fairly large blog about this and the research for that blog was over a week of fact finding and data gathering to argue this exact point. I found similarities within both games and music enough to use both as my research notes on this matter.
    purplexing
    Smegal wrote: No. I wrote a huge blog on this issue a month or two ago, Their main gripe is they don't understand how to use these sites to their advantage. There are various models such as the "Try before you buy" which can fully use these sites to the producers advantage, given that many studies have found the largest demographic of music purchases come from the people who "illigally" download them. The reason for this is simple, we have more music than ever to listen to with the internet being available worldwide now. People can use technology to create music in their own homes. With this in full swing people wanna know they like something before buying it. They do this by finding somewhere that has it (And more often than not you can only find mainstream music on things like spotify, given I have not been able to find gravel trap anywhere). Oddly enough it's other music fans that place these torrents up on sites like the piratebay and this allows people to find music they would NEVER have heard otherwise. And considering this is the demographic most likely to buy the music they download this is a good thing for the music industry NOT the scapegoat they claim it to be.
    This is asinine. That study does not properly measure what it says it does. " the largest demographic of music purchases come from the people who "illigally" download them." No shit, everyone downloads music, next your going to tell me that the largest demographic of music buyers are people who eat breakfast. What I find really repugnant are people like you. Those who rationalize and think that they are making musicians a favor by torrenting songs. I myself do illegal get songs, but I never think that I am doing something good. If I download a song there is little to no chance that I'll buy it, since I already have that song. The only reason I buy songs, is simply because I can't find them online .Why do you think artists are making less money? tl;dr Saying that downloading music helps the artists is complete bullshit in order to excuse the bad actions you take.
    RndyW0
    I'm glad they mention things like Spotify in this, it has been such a wondrous tool for me. I have spent hours upon hours listening to bands that I like, using the related artists to discover new music and then buying more diverse music as well as funding bands which I knew that I liked.
    disingenuous
    Pirate bay is way smarter than the government. And the whole thing about lining their pockets? oh yeah sharing music for free is way more money grabbing than the companies who care nought for their listeners and only for their money. You people are fools, music will always be free, and all musicians who are worth anything should understand this; music is made for enjoyment, not for money.
    JelloCrust
    Plenty of people have covered this already, but I just want to actually put a number behind it: Artists usually get between 2-10 cents per album bought. . . which usually cost the consumer; what $15 these days. The artists and bands make more money touring and selling merch, but if their on a big label, the executives still bleed them dry. The problem isn't with the consumer, it's with the exorbitantly costly middle men known as major label record executives.
    purplexing
    Smegal wrote: Okay looks like i have a double reply to make. Firstly lets reply to @purplexing. Your fault with your arguement lies in your assumption everyone is like you. Scientific studies have gathered enough evidence to state that the largest demographic of REAL purchases come from people who admit to downloading illegally. This is not a 100% demographic either, many people will not illegally download music nor will they steal it. A lot of people have a good heart and to be perfectly honest I have not downloaded an album in probably 5 years now, the one I did download was streetlight manifesto and guess what, I purchased their album when I actually found it. (Not an easy task mind you). If I make you feel repugnant then read my post again, I don't make assumptions, I'm educated enough to only work on fact. Your problem is you assume people are like yourself. .
    Asinine yet again. You don't make assumptions? Quoting Bill Maher " Everything on the internet is fact unless it says LOL in the end". Not only did you not cite your 'data', it's probably biased and unreliable, and again I repeat the information you presented means nothing. Just like dyerseve30 said, people usually buy 1 song for every hundreds that they download. Oh and the fact that you have a blog and spend 'weeks' researching means absolutely nothing. Hell I know 7th graders who say the same thing. If you work on fact, then tell me why are artists making less money know than before illegal music downloading started? Oh and yes, your inability to understand that you are doing something wrong and excusing it with something false is repugnant.
    dyerseve30
    Smegal wrote: No. I wrote a huge blog on this issue a month or two ago, Their main gripe is they don't understand how to use these sites to their advantage. There are various models such as the "Try before you buy" which can fully use these sites to the producers advantage, given that many studies have found the largest demographic of music purchases come from the people who "illigally" download them. The reason for this is simple, we have more music than ever to listen to with the internet being available worldwide now. People can use technology to create music in their own homes. With this in full swing people wanna know they like something before buying it. They do this by finding somewhere that has it (And more often than not you can only find mainstream music on things like spotify, given I have not been able to find gravel trap anywhere). Oddly enough it's other music fans that place these torrents up on sites like the piratebay and this allows people to find music they would NEVER have heard otherwise. And considering this is the demographic most likely to buy the music they download this is a good thing for the music industry NOT the scapegoat they claim it to be.
    Hahaha you are pathetic. Use your ****ing head. If the largest demographic of music purchases came from illegal downloaders, then there would be no problems. You can't count the one album or single you bought for the 50 albums you torrented and say "oh I buy the albums I download illegally". Also, don't put illegally in quetations. It is illegal. Try it before you buy it? If the bands you listen to are big enough to be found on torrent sites, then they are big enough to have their own web page or iTunes account where you can listen to their music before you buy them. Stop making pathetic excuses to justify your bad actions.
    Crofty89
    You know your legal system is bad when an illegal site with a name as completely un-subtle as The Pirate Bay is still operating. While I'm neither condemning or condoning piracy here, you'd think if Interpol could track down and apprehend the owner of MegaUpload and shut the site down completely all in a matter of days, with no publicity until it had all gone down, it wouldn't be too hard to do the same to The Pirate Bay. Does the fact that this hasn't happened seem fishy to anyone else? (insert "It's a conspiracy" image here)
    JMV12
    The only thing that will successfully end file sharing is if the plug is pulled on the internet. That is, a total blackout. This is never going to happen because everything is internet based nowadays. Having said that, yeah, file sharing is not legal, but it's become such an unstoppable force that any attempts to end it are futile. Now, I'm not saying I don't care about the way it could affect the labels or the artists, but the business people brought this on themselves. For decades, they got away with marketing crap bands/artists who only had one or two good/decent songs out of 12 or whatever, and the albums were priced at about $15. This was wonderful for them because they were able to rake in the lion's share of the profit. Now, the labels realize that their empire is crumbling and that the goose with the golden eggs is dying. If they want to survive, they either have to develop a better business model, or actually go out and find bands that have quality music and not just one potentially good single so that this helps to reestablish their credibility and the faith of the consumers.
    Smegal
    You cant stop it because it is a collective of people who are determined not to have their liberties taken away. Fighting it is not the answer. Proxys aren't illegal so they cant remove them, they can't take out someone offering a proxy to a banned site because once again a proxy is not illegal. But a proxy is dangerous to the user because known ones can be maliciously used. I tested this not to long ago (Yesterday when researching the piratebay issue actually) and my army of firewalls and anti malware prevented something from simply visting the proxy site. So if anything by forcing users to use proxies they put their computers into dangerous situations which is even more dangerous for them because those users will spread the infection and more possibly to their services.
    barrymiles
    pretty impressive that despite being blocked it was still the 282nd most visited site in the country. I mean, that's a lot of interweb
    GameSkate
    ^ I only BUY music (CDs) that I have on my hard drive, downloaded. I like have physical copies with box, artwork, booklet with lyrics etc.
    Smegal
    Well the problem with the SOPA/PIPA and ACTA stuff is they tried to be cheeky. They were purposely vague so they could get away with a lot more than it was intended. Because it was like this it threw into doubt the legitimacy of the original purpose of the act and threw into question the freedom of the internet. What we will never give up is our freedom online. Once we have tasted it we will never give it up. I can bet you they never imagined the internet would become anywhere near what it is today, the ability to police it currently is near 0. These acts when drawn up were supposed to tackle one issue but they tried to use it for a lot more, taking away it's focus from it's original intent and thus making them a mockery of an act. What would they have done, allowed a company to complain to an authority that a particular site is infringing their "Copyrighted" material, that was vague enough, and this made the site liable to compensate them for any speculative damages. Youtube would be in infringement under these vague laws. Yet the joke is this act was supposed to JUST give them the power in court over a site purposely infringing their copyright. They figured the act would be passed on this merit alone so they took the usual government style liberty to attach small bi-lines to it. This did not go unnoticed and that is what caused them to fail. Garanteed if the law was just this one sentence it would be passed. "In the event a website purposely aids in the theft of any intellectual property, that is a form of media which holds a valid license obtained within the past 10 years, said website is to be given notice to cease such conduct and under failure to do so is liable for any and all damages ensued."
    Smegal
    My reserach included articles posted on here actually. I didn't feel the need to cite my sources because they are in part right here
    Smegal
    Addendum. You may know 7th graders who can research what 2+2 equals, I just finished university where my thesis was a comparison of crowd avoidance algorithms which included heavy focus on research details and hypotheticals, on this I got the highest grade so I can tell you my research should not be compared with that of a 7th grader. Mainstream artists are losing out, HOWEVER and this is the biggie, as a whole who is losing out is the companies, not the artists. I'm not saying this is good, those companies are build from employees who rely on that money, but your arguement is the artist is losing money. Maybe a few at the top arent getting that big fat paycheck, and instead getting a big fat paycheck with a small drop, but this will be circumvented by royalty payments from their music being used left right an center (Unless they were dumb enough to give up those rights). I just called in a few people to get their opinions and it went as follows. Would you download gravel trap? WHo are they? Doesn't matter, they are a punk band but would you buy their album? No. What if you downloaded their album and actually liked it? Well yeah, then I would. That is the exact conversation I just had. Ommitting them also saying they wanna go out and by sum 41 which we listen to on a radio channel online. I am not saying im excusing it, but you obviously didnt read my statement because i stated i havent done it in what 5 years, and even then i bought the album. I'm asking you to think logically and unemotionally and thnk of what could happen if this culture was embrased rather than faught.
    BeerBarrel.D.
    Voor de Nederlanders die the piratebay gewoon willen gebruiken; www.****timkuik.org it ain't a crime
    leohimself
    it's the major labels who rip off musicians, not the fans. get your facts straight mr. Geoff Taylor.
    Ryan_Good1
    I can't stand all the comments on here trying to justify illegal downloads. Yes, trying before you buy should be more widely implemented on sites where you can purchase music, but that doesn't make it right for you to take matters into your own hands and download music for free. Maybe there are a select few of you who do what you say you do and download it, then listen to it and then either buy it legally or delete it off your computer, but the large large majority of people don't do that. When you buy music you buy the rights to take that music where you want to and listen to it, sites like Amazon and iTunes already let you listen to a preview of any song, and even if it is just 30 seconds that should do. Also if you go into a shop and steal something, but then 2 months later you go and give them the money that it cost, would you still get done for robbery? Just saying. Most of the reasons people give on here in favour of illegal downloads are pure sophistry. End rant.
    Smegal
    Ryan_Good1 wrote: Logically and unemotionally you make some sense. You keep riding your horse of biggest demographic of music buyers are people who torrent. From that "fact" you make the logical fallacy of assuming that this means illegal downloads are the reason for their increased music purchases. This is a fallacy because there are other contributing factors; the people who download music clearly like music and so are more likely to also buy music, like someone else said a LOT of people download music and a lot of people buy music, where these two groups overlap you find you biggest demographic. It took me 5 seconds to think of these two valid other explanations. Of course your sparring partner purplexing has some logical fallacies as well, namely that less money to artists is only due to illegal downloads and could have nothing to do with our shocking economic climate.
    I never stated that BECAUSE they download, only that the largest demographic were those who download music. There are of course other contributing factors as you said however it is a culmination of all things that creates the end result. Im not saying if the culture is embraced and accepted as is it will benefit the industry, logically that is wrong. But if they embrace it and use it with other techniques already utilised it could see increasing profit by targeting the audience they are aiming for.
    TheExterminator
    JMV12 wrote: The only thing that will successfully end file sharing is if the plug is pulled on the internet.
    And then tape trading will reign supreme. YES YES!
    Ryan_Good1
    Smegal wrote: Addendum. You may know 7th graders who can research what 2+2 equals, I just finished university where my thesis was a comparison of crowd avoidance algorithms which included heavy focus on research details and hypotheticals, on this I got the highest grade so I can tell you my research should not be compared with that of a 7th grader. Mainstream artists are losing out, HOWEVER and this is the biggie, as a whole who is losing out is the companies, not the artists. I'm not saying this is good, those companies are build from employees who rely on that money, but your arguement is the artist is losing money. Maybe a few at the top arent getting that big fat paycheck, and instead getting a big fat paycheck with a small drop, but this will be circumvented by royalty payments from their music being used left right an center (Unless they were dumb enough to give up those rights). I just called in a few people to get their opinions and it went as follows. Would you download gravel trap? WHo are they? Doesn't matter, they are a punk band but would you buy their album? No. What if you downloaded their album and actually liked it? Well yeah, then I would. That is the exact conversation I just had. Ommitting them also saying they wanna go out and by sum 41 which we listen to on a radio channel online. I am not saying im excusing it, but you obviously didnt read my statement because i stated i havent done it in what 5 years, and even then i bought the album. I'm asking you to think logically and unemotionally and thnk of what could happen if this culture was embrased rather than faught.
    Logically and unemotionally you make some sense. You keep riding your horse of biggest demographic of music buyers are people who torrent. From that "fact" you make the logical fallacy of assuming that this means illegal downloads are the reason for their increased music purchases. This is a fallacy because there are other contributing factors; the people who download music clearly like music and so are more likely to also buy music, like someone else said a LOT of people download music and a lot of people buy music, where these two groups overlap you find you biggest demographic. It took me 5 seconds to think of these two valid other explanations. Of course your sparring partner purplexing has some logical fallacies as well, namely that less money to artists is only due to illegal downloads and could have nothing to do with our shocking economic climate.
    kiba56
    They could do that sopa thing just on the music piracy websites like, vuze, the pirate bay and so on. Just not do it to youtube and those sites. Heck if people wanna listen to an album for free jsut go to the bands myspace they have all there albums on there profiles and you can lissten to any album and the full songs of them and you dont have to pay a cent.
    disingenuous
    Pirate bay is situated in sweden, where the copyright laws dont affect them. Everyone knows who runs pirate bay, and many companys email him to try and shut down the company. he replies rather humorously too. Megaupload was poor anyway, torrents are they way forward. metaphorically speaking of course, i buy my music like "everyone else".
    Smegal
    Flibo wrote: So you claim that those who download music illegally actually generate profits to the industry because they also buy more music legally than regular consumers? If "illegal downloading" was embraced, don't you think it would create a situation where downloading for free would feel more justified and that there would be no need to buy the record? I mean, sure, the demographic which you brought up exists at the moment; Piracy can be beneficial to the music industry. But I have a bad feeling about that. What if the demographic disappears or changes? How could you justify illegal downloading when nobody "tries and buys" anymore? I'm not against piracy, but I don't like that particular argument for it.
    Well what evidence do you have that if people download MORE music they will purchase LESS music? I'm actually very interested to you answer for this because this particular area of discussion holds a major interest to me. If you are running on what you would do as an arguement alone maybe you should take a look at yourself. What evidence I have seen shows that the more music you hear the more likely you are to buy, but hey if you found a source claiming otherwise that isn't funded by BPI or another source whose interest it is to stop downloads, then gimme a link and i'll review it. The amazing thing about people is we have a strange effect with eachother. I love researching people, if you are interested i suggest reading a rather old book called critical mass btw, but the thing about groups of people are we do not act as you would expect. For example if you left a wallet on the street and circled it would you think someone would take it? Amazingly not. If you told someone a kitten would die if you press a button would you resist it? no. The lure of defying a rule allures us. (Yes these are derren brown acts). My point is you can't assume that x = y in any case. If this culture was embraced anything could happen, evidence suggests one thing, feelings suggest another, but certainly with careful implementation it can be used as a tool to both increase profits and create a wider knowledge of music for the general consumers. If you've watched WWE recently you'll see they are using social media in nearly every show now, thats the way an industry suvives, by evolving with the times and technology that becomes available. I don't condone piracy, but I see benefits of using this culture that exists and cannot be stopped. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, a collision that will be dangerous for all involved.
    dyerseve30
    Kueller917 wrote: I've said it before and I guess I'll keep saying it again with every piracy article. The industry needs to STOP punishing downloaders and file sharing sites and use all that effort to use the technology presented to them. When the VHS and VCR came about the movie industry didn't collapse just because people could copy. Eventually it all balances out once the ones in charge get their heads out of their asses and adapt.
    While I'll agree with you that an outside of the box approach needs to be used, I disagree that punishment needs to stop. Organized crime in New York or Chicago may have seemed like an unstoppable force, but that doesn't mean we should just give them free reign. You need to also understand that there is a big difference between letting one or two friends copy your cassette or video tape (still illegal as futile as it seems) and letting essentially 5 billion people have access to that music or video via file sharing online. Cassette copying and file sharing are totally different monsters.
    JD2k9
    I'd be more happy to pay for music if releases were actually mixed properly. The only label I notice to be consistently good in that aspect is Ambush Reality.
    Flibo
    Smegal wrote: Addendum. You may know 7th graders who can research what 2+2 equals, I just finished university where my thesis was a comparison of crowd avoidance algorithms which included heavy focus on research details and hypotheticals, on this I got the highest grade so I can tell you my research should not be compared with that of a 7th grader. Mainstream artists are losing out, HOWEVER and this is the biggie, as a whole who is losing out is the companies, not the artists. I'm not saying this is good, those companies are build from employees who rely on that money, but your arguement is the artist is losing money. Maybe a few at the top arent getting that big fat paycheck, and instead getting a big fat paycheck with a small drop, but this will be circumvented by royalty payments from their music being used left right an center (Unless they were dumb enough to give up those rights). I just called in a few people to get their opinions and it went as follows. Would you download gravel trap? WHo are they? Doesn't matter, they are a punk band but would you buy their album? No. What if you downloaded their album and actually liked it? Well yeah, then I would. That is the exact conversation I just had. Ommitting them also saying they wanna go out and by sum 41 which we listen to on a radio channel online. I am not saying im excusing it, but you obviously didnt read my statement because i stated i havent done it in what 5 years, and even then i bought the album. I'm asking you to think logically and unemotionally and thnk of what could happen if this culture was embrased rather than faught.
    So you claim that those who download music illegally actually generate profits to the industry because they also buy more music legally than regular consumers? If "illegal downloading" was embraced, don't you think it would create a situation where downloading for free would feel more justified and that there would be no need to buy the record? I mean, sure, the demographic which you brought up exists at the moment; Piracy can be beneficial to the music industry. But I have a bad feeling about that. What if the demographic disappears or changes? How could you justify illegal downloading when nobody "tries and buys" anymore? I'm not against piracy, but I don't like that particular argument for it.
    motorizer
    You can sit there and try as hard as you can to stop it .. But as the old saying goes - One will fall but millions will rise.