bbc.co.uk Navigation

Rory Cellan-Jones

Music versus TalkTalk - it's war...

  • Rory Cellan-Jones
  • 3 Apr 08, 22:05 GMT

When I walked into Charles Dunstone's office at Carphone Warehouse's giant blue shed on a West London trading estate, he was in fighting mood. Brandishing a document, he told me: "They've sent us the most unbelievably rude letter." They were the BPI - the music industry's trade body - and Mr Dunstone, whose TalkTalk business is Britain's third biggest internet service provider, saw that letter as a declaration of war.

Charles DunstoneThe BPI has been writing to all the big ISPs with a proposal. It wants them to warn their users that file-sharing is not an acceptable activity - and then disconnect those who ignore repeated warnings to desist. The ISPs don't like the idea of chucking out customers - but they and their trade association have been keeping a low profile on this issue. Not so Carphone Warehouse. Charles Dunstone was so angry about that letter, which he says threatened legal action if he didn't comply with the BPI's demands within 14 days, that he issued a call to arms. "TalkTalk rejects music industry threats and refuses to become internet police" said the press release that came hurtling out of that shed in Acton.

Mr Dunstone is angry for two reasons - he doesn't want to start telling his customers how to behave, and he thinks the music industry is trying to make him pay the price for its failure to adapt to the digital age. "They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted - the horse has left town, got married, and started a family."

So what's the other side of this story? Well the music industry thinks Carphone Warehouse is being mischievous. The BPI has issued an equally combative press release which says "TalkTalk either seek to misrepresent our position or just doesn't get it." The trade body says it is not asking ISPs to police the internet, but simply to act on evidence that it will provide about users who are engaged in music piracy.

Lurking in the back of this very noisy battle is the government. The BPI believes that it has convinced ministers that the ISPs need to play their part in the battle against file-sharing. Jeff Taylor of the BPI told us: "The government says if ISPs do not start helping to deal with this problem in a helpful way then there will be legislation."

Charles Dunstone says he will fight all the way against any move to make him cut off customers engaged in file-sharing - and he doesn't believe there is any chance that the government will bring in laws to force him to do that. Mr Dunstone is pretty well plugged in to the current government - so he's probably right. Ministers have been lobbied with some vigour on this issue by the music industry - but the BPI may find that supportive mood music from the government doesn't translate into new laws.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 02:48 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Jordan Wharmsby wrote:

Good for Talk Talk!
Now, I'm not for a moment saying music piracy is a good thing, and I'm sure that Mr. Dunstone will agree but what isn't right is this 'enforced patrol' of our Internet usage.

To force an ISP to keep track of what we do whilst online is a very scary prospect indeed and one which I'm sure a lot of Internet user's could do without.

I understand the music industry's concern in losing money by the pound with each illegally downloaded album, but it isn't as though they are doing much to help prevent this - we don't see no warnings anywhere to stop us.

Britain's largest music demographic is late teens, if we think that downloading from iTunes is legal, who's to say that downloading 'elsewhere' isn't legal too - shouldn't we be educated about this before being punished for doing so.

To put the blame solely on the ISP's is ludicrous, the BPI should take their finger out first before ISP's are forced to over-haul their payroll's to take on hundreds more staff in order to monitor vastly innocent Internet users.

  • 2.
  • At 06:23 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • HJD wrote:

And Charles is right about the music industry's failure to adapt to the digital age. And really, although file sharing may be a faster and more efficient way of sharing music between people, it isn't the only way people can get their hands on music without paying royalties to the music industry. You never hear a fuss about royalties and, for example, second hand music outlets or ebay re-sales of used cds or albums. What the music industry needs to do is understand that their overhead has been greatly reduced because they don't need to manufacture all those discs and accompanying packaging for the discs. They should turn that savings into investment into improving and developing digital technology. I download music legally all the time from both Napster and iTunes and I am MUCH more likely to pay £7.99 to download a full length cd instead of paying £15.99 to buy a cd with its packaging and then have to find somewhere to store the thing. I'm still astonished at the music industry forcing Pandora to stop streaming to the UK because Pandora can't afford the excessive fees being charged by the music industry to do so. This is a great example of small thinking from small minds - Pandora was a great way to explore new music and learn to love new artists - and then go BUY their music.

  • 3.
  • At 08:23 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • David Davies wrote:

TalkTalk's position on this is commendable. They are correct in their view that many of the problems faced by the music industry is their slowness to move to the digital age. However, I've wondered for some time why other ISPs have not already been taken to court for having illegally held content on their servers.

For example, Virgin Media (and NTL before it) operate their own Newsgroup servers. These servers hold many gigabytes (probably Terrabytes) of music, software and movies that are much quicker to download than through a P2P program. The fact that the music industry has yet to take a UK ISP to court over such blatant infringement makes them look toothless and that they are only interested in bullying the user who downloads this material, rather than cutting off the primary infringers - some of the ISPs themselves.

  • 4.
  • At 08:35 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Steve wrote:

Whilst not being a big fan of anything Carphone Warehouse and having never pirated music, I am 100% behind Charles Dunstone on this one.

If the BPI wants a user's internet connection removed then go to court and prove each individual case. If successful then the ISPs will comply with a court order.

I am also getting tired of this portrayal of file-sharing being illegal using phrases such as "the battle against file-sharing", there is a mountain of perfectly legal material on the file-sharing sites. The BBC's own iplayer uses file-sharing.

  • 5.
  • At 08:39 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Good on you talk talk for Sticking up for the people. End of the day you can hear music on the radio for free. so what's the difference between tuning in and downloading a track? The music industry should focus more on making money from live music. Digital file sharing will never go away, the programmers writing the code are always one step ahead of the of the "internet investigators". They should wake up and smell the coffee and embrace this amazing delivery system, and use it to there advantage.

  • 6.
  • At 08:39 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Michael, Manchester UK wrote:

Well done Talk Talk. I am glad to see that somebody is taking a stand against the BPI.

The government seems to be completely clueless about how to deal with the Internet. The news today that sex offenders' email addresses are going to be logged is equally ridiculous. They can have a new email address in 5 minutes.

Good on you talk talk for Sticking up for the people. End of the day you can hear music on the radio for free. so what's the difference between tuning in and downloading a track? The music industry should focus more on making money from live music. Digital file sharing will never go away, the programmers writing the code are always one step ahead of the of the "internet investigators". They should wake up and smell the coffee and embrace this amazing delivery system, and use it to there advantage.

  • 8.
  • At 08:59 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • ChrisG wrote:

Intersting the BPI say 'file sharing' is unacceptable - what about sharing photo's or home-movies between friends?

  • 9.
  • At 09:05 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • John lewington wrote:

I'm sure I have heard that phrase "If a company doesn't comply with 'so and so' there will be legislation" somewhere else this month??

This all smacks of intimidation and bullying.

Which is also something else I heard that "would not be tolerated"

Now....who said that?


  • 10.
  • At 09:35 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Tom wrote:

How can the BPI stop me from sharing files? I upload photos to Flickr, home movies to YouTube and presentations to Slide. I love the iPlayer, which uses P2P technology, and I download legal Linux distro's from bittorrent sites.

Besides, we have 5 people in our household. Will the ISP cut off our entire connection if one person is rickrolled and downloads a dubious mp3?

Will the ISPs decide what's illegal? And will they then enforce it? ISn't that a bit like grocery store owners fining underage kids trying to buy cigarettes?

  • 11.
  • At 10:58 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • nads wrote:

"the BPI may find that supportive mood music from the government doesn't translate into new laws"

Thank god for that! Because that particular Lobby has it completely backwards. You don't shoot the messenger; transportation and communication channels will always be abused by criminals, but you don't shut the ferries from Calais to Dover because some of their customers smuggle cheap booze and fags from France in varying quantities, some legal, some not.

There are already laws against 'illegal file downloading' (hence 'illegal'), that's all we need. And if the BPI wants more 'law enforcement' they can always sponsor a new private investigation team that hands over legally obtained evidence to the Police.

  • 12.
  • At 11:11 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • xTx wrote:

looks like it's time to switch ISP to Talk Talk then!

:)

xTx

  • 13.
  • At 11:14 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Donna M wrote:

Surely, until the music industry, the government, lawyers etc agree on what exactly constitutes illegal "file-sharing" asking ISP's to police it doesn't really matter.

Making millions each year is good for the music industry, they get very grouchy when they lose some - they throw their toys out of the pram and I suspect that the ISP's just got hit with one of them. Did they really think the ISP's were going to "ban" customers? Paying customers!! Don't be silly.

Perhaps if the music industry grew up, lowered CD prices and legal online downloads all would be much better?

No? Oh dear, another million lost, another Yacht they can't have.

I wonder what Virgin Media have to say about it, being in the music business too?

  • 14.
  • At 11:33 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Rikki wrote:

Fantastic! As much as I am against music piracy, it is nice to see someone with some real power stand up to the BPI Bully Boys.

  • 15.
  • At 11:35 AM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • John Macintyre wrote:

Oh dear, oh dear!

Content providers seem not to understand the new paradigm. The traditional way of making money selling content just isn't working. Everyone can copy music -- and if you put DRM onto something you can easily record the noise that comes out of the speakers and create new digital content, so that's a nonsense.

Similarly with video. So the answer is not to order the tide to retreat, but to find new ways to use the content to make money. Google's done a damned fine way with search, and advertising is finding its way into many other areas.

The answer isn't easy, and the disgraceful profits made on each item will not return, but there are massive shifts in business models underway.

The music industry, et al, need to get used to this. It won't go away and they can't stop the tide. They need to start being creative or they'll go the way of candlestick makers (remember them?).

  • 16.
  • At 12:50 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • The ReV' wrote:

Am i the only one who doesn't have a problem with downloading music?
I LOVE my music but could never afford to buy albums the way i download stuff for free.
Yes I understand teh arguement but quite frankly when it comes down to my enjoyment of "the music" and buying it the enjoyment wins hands down.
Yeah i buy albums of artists I really like but everything else I peer2peer.
Sorry but I'll stop doing it when they pry my i-pod from my cold dead fingers!
LOL!

  • 17.
  • At 01:15 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Simon Ward wrote:

Can't help but wonder if this is some kind of diversionary tactic in the hope that people will forget that Carphone Warehouse are still considering using the services of a former spyware vendor to 'profile' their users ...

  • 18.
  • At 01:30 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Mike wrote:

I'm not afraid to admit I download lots of music - none of it paid for - in order to listen to new music. It's allows me greater exposure to new and different genres of music, that if I had to pay for I wouldn't listen to. Id I like the music, I'll go out and buy the CD, adding to the 200+ albums sitting on my shelf. So thats nearly £2000 spent on albums alone.

The internet should be 'free' with no policing, no restrictions, and legislation telling what you can and cannot do. Everyday news stories are released stating legisation for this and that, and yet the people writing the legislation have no real concept of what the internet is, it's a fluid, forever changing and morphing, like Jurassic Park, life finds a way. If you ban something, work-arounds will soon appear, better to embrace the change than to fear and ban it.

Paedophiles can have a new yahoo, gmail, hotmail account within 5 minutes, and a new facebook profile to match, loggin one of their accounts will make no difference, they too will find a way. Take a junkies heroin away, won't stop him being a junkie, he'll find a new fix very quickly.

  • 19.
  • At 01:30 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • joe rose wrote:

mmmmn strikes me as somewhat contradictory from the main ISP's. one minute the say they are merely conduits, the middle man so to speak and they cant beheld accountable for what there users do. the next minute they say they arent and that they are going to track our web browsing using the new Phorm system! which means they are going to intercept your web page requests, clearly stating they arent merely conduits

you cant be both.

my advice would be to change ISP to one which:

a) offers what you pay for. Talk Talk use local loop technolgy which basically means if people in your area are on the net your connection slows down, ie you never get the bandwidth you pay for.

b) doesnt snoop on your web browsing habits and offer you targeted ads( virgin, Bt and Talk Talk )

c) doesnt conduct illegal secret trials on its users- BT

  • 20.
  • At 01:45 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Sean Thorp Walker wrote:

It seems incredibly hypocritical of Talk Talk to say they are not there to Police their customers use of the Internet and yet when a technology like Phorm comes along they’re quite happy to spy on their customers’ usage and sell the information for a quick buck.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree totally that the Music industry is bleeting about File sharing when they should be adapting to a technology that has now been in place for many years. When digital Downloads started I bought many albums via this route (NOTE: BOUGHT). When I realised how restricted I was in my use of those purchased albums I stopped buying; I not only stopped buying Digital Downloads but I stopped buying Music full stop. In part the reason for this was that I know the easiest way for me to buy music is as Digital Download but that route has been crippled by the Recording Industries use of Digital Rights Management.

In the days of Vinyl and the Cassette tape people copied their albums and handed those to their friends or maybe sent them through the post. The Digital age may have made the sharing easier and the resultant data streams may make it more traceable but just because the data is more accessible doesn’t mean it’s right to use it. It certainly doesn’t mean that the BPI should be approaching ISPs because artists work is being stolen. That job belongs to the police. If the BPI can show that work is being stolen take it to court, make a case and let a judge decide but stop trying to shortcut the existing legal process. The BPI is not above the Law and should not be atacking ISPs.

If the BPI are going down this route then have they written to the Post Office in the same way to block the cassette route? Will they be looking to have peoples ability to send and recieve letters removed? The quickest and easiest way to make sense of the digital world is often to think 'What used to happen before this was done via the network?'.

  • 21.
  • At 02:04 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Paul Freeman-Powell wrote:

I have to agree with my boss on this one!

Asking ISPs to police the internet is like asking the people who tarmac our roads to take action against people who drive too fast and cause accidents.

The whole "music-piracy-costs-the-industry" stuff really makes me laugh. Does the music industry look hard off to you? Music award ceremonies are a lavish display of enourmous wealth, and rock stars (and even pop stars with not an iota of talent, but the right promotion through trashy reality TV shows) are richer than ever before. So even with half the world pirating their songs, they're still loaded.

Music should be free for the general consumer. Ticket sales for gigs should be the major earner for musicians... because that's what music should be all about: an entertaining art form and a performance. The more we can do to break the model of music being a mass-produced product to sell and make money the better! There are also countless other ways to make money from music: every time the BBC, for instance, uses a song in a TV programme the artist will get royalties.

Charging for music is an outdated model - just look at Radiohead's latest album... this will all change soon hopefully, good on you Charles for your stance against the BPI's greed!!

  • 22.
  • At 02:08 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • John wrote:

Good for Talk Talk for standing up the bully. I don't think any ISP would be happy with this letter, for the simple fact that "file-sharers" are the majority of those who are paying for the high speed broadband and higher priced packages. No-one needs 8meg+ broadband to surf and read emails! ISPs are often claiming how many songs you can download with so-and-so package. Their high profits are due to the pirates, and they wish to keep it that way.

  • 23.
  • At 02:22 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • James wrote:

Thank you TalkTalk for finally taking the side of the users in this debacle.

The idea of forcing ISPs to spy on their users to reduce illegal file sharing is both improper and impossible.

Improper because the idea is based around protecting imaginary profit margins. A user downloading a $600 copy of Photoshop is not suddenly going to buy it if their access is cut. It's undeniable that some people might buy a music CD, but the industry has shown no interest in seperating those who would from those who wouldn't. Their complaints about losses are based on lies.

Impossible because there are many uses of file sharing, and only some are illegal. If the ISPs start cutting back on file sharing services, users will move to those that don't (and this being a free market, some bright spark would obviously snap up all those subscriptions). If the ISPs start trying to inspect all file sharing, the users will create new programs, and start encrypting their data. Good luck inspecting it then.

The music industry has already lost this battle. They simply refuse to accept it and change. Instead they pursue legal action which solves nothing, the proceeds of which go right back into more legal action (the artists don't benefit at all!).

Distribution models have changed, the BMI and RIAA missed their chance to influence them, and people simply aren't as willing to pay for music anymore.

I'm sure the advent of cheap air travel hurt local tourism, too, but hey, that's progress for you. Someone always loses.

  • 24.
  • At 02:30 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Daniel C wrote:

Asking to the ISPs to police the internet is like car manufacturers being told that they have to make sure all the people driving their cars are not breaking the law by going over the speed limit.

  • 25.
  • At 02:53 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • darrylxxx wrote:

The music industry conveniently gloss over LEGAL uses of peer-to-peer/bittorrent applications. How is an ISP to determine whether something is legal or illegal? Are they to take the word of the BPI - and who appointed them judge and jury? Under what authority can they determine if something is legal or illegal? Last time I looked, there was a presumption of innocence in this country until PROVEN guilty. This type of kangaroo court should be resisted by everyone who values due process and fairness.

C'mon Talk Talk!
Music file sharing should not be monitored, because If you make a tune on garageband, and you want a friend to hear it, what will happen then?
Instead, block or take down the illegal music websites, to stop it in the first place! I mean, iTunes has an anti-fileshare lock! ;-)
Hazamajaza

  • 27.
  • At 04:39 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • Chad h. wrote:

He's absolutely right, piracy is the fault of the rights holding multinationals.

Illegal Download sites have been running for years, proving there is a Market for digitally distributed content, but the rights holders just kept playing the fiddle.

Its about time they got serious in providing the customer with what they want for a change.

  • 28.
  • At 05:32 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • John Macintyre wrote:

Oh dear, oh dear!

Content providers seem not to understand the new paradigm. The traditional way of making money selling content just isn't working. Everyone can copy music -- and if you put DRM onto something you can easily record the noise that comes out of the speakers and create new digital content, so that's a nonsense.

Similarly with video. So the answer is not to order the tide to retreat, but to find new ways to use the content to make money. Google's done a damned fine way with search, and advertising is finding its way into many other areas.

The answer isn't easy, and the disgraceful profits made on each item will not return, but there are massive shifts in business models underway.

The music industry, et al, need to get used to this. It won't go away and they can't stop the tide. They need to start being creative or they'll go the way of candlestick makers (remember them?).

  • 29.
  • At 05:45 PM on 04 Apr 2008,
  • AS wrote:

I am glad CW have taken a stand against the music industry who have it so good over the years. 15 years ago you would have to pay around £20 for a double CD - what a rip off! Their fat-cat execs were making money hand over fist! With the advent of file sharing they have forced to reduce their rip off prices and charge a reasonable amount for their products. And they are still making money (so imagine how much they were making 15 years ago)! I'm not saying file sharing/piracy is a good thing but, it serves the industry right for ripping people off for years!

  • 30.
  • At 01:24 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • SnowHarp wrote:

I totally agree with AS. The music industry have done this to themselves and were caught napping. After years of paying premium prices for CD albums there is little sympathy for the music industry in the UK. ISPs should not be obliged to police the internet usage of their customers although I feel they already do this. How else do they charge customers for using more than their download threshold or implement 'shaping' to strangle their bandwidth? Far more important than this, when will ISPs give customers the banwidth they advertise ? It is just as bad as the music industry 'rip off'.

  • 31.
  • At 05:43 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Crockett wrote:

The music business needs to put it's house in order, how about re-couping the obscene advances paid to artists who never fulfil their commitment, millions of pounds wasted and thrown down the drain. Go ask Guy Hands how many profligate idiots he has thrown on the street from all his A&R departments, the cash they have wasted would more than compensate for so called illegal downloads. These people really have some neck, whilst being totally financially over indulging in house they now want to use other independent well runbusiness's to grab a few bob from 15 year old kids and many OAP's who cannot afford the stupid prices demanded in record stores.

Government should get involved asking why we in the UK are being screwed by at least twenty pence a track more than America. They are crooks.

  • 32.
  • At 09:07 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Gingerbonce wrote:

Asking ISPs to try to restrict piracy is yet another example of how our society is tying itself in knots, with responsibility for the "solution" being so far removed from the actual "problem," that it will never work. The job of the ISPs it to err, *provide internet services* in as user-friendly, and cost-effective way as possible, whilst still making a buck for their shareholders. However, piracy IS theft. All the music that people take for granted as being "free" has to be paid for. Most of the costs associated with music production are fixed; what that translates to in reality, is that for every track NOT paid for, the cost of those that are rises sharply. People miss the fact that the music companies take enormous risks when signing up artists, and for every successful band/singer there are dozens that bomb. The suggested egalitarian model where musicians record in their garage digitally and then promote themselves at very low cost via say, YouTube, is fine, IF you happen to catch them, and become aware of them. Otherwise, they're just likely to remain popular in their local area and miss a much wider audience that the music companies can reach.
Oh, and about the "vast" profits made by music, and other, companies; they mostly go into YOUR pension and into the Government's coffers via corporation tax...

  • 33.
  • At 10:15 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Phil M wrote:

I'm not a fan of CW, but I wholly support their action. If this threat by the BPI is intended to stop music/video piracy than the BPI and its US and Euro counterparts have to change their product. It is their members that have actually exacerbated the the piracy problem.

According to the BPI its counterparts and at least one of its members, if I want to listen to a particular piece of music on my MP3 player or PC, on my CD player or in my car(my car only has a cassette player), I should purchase a copy of the same piece of music for each format I want to use it on! If that is not an attempt to rip off the public and if that does not encourage piracy then I don't know what does! That attitude reflects total misunderstanding of the market.

I remain to be convinced by any argument I have yet heard from the BPI (et al) that the drop in profits by their members is directly related to illegal file sharing. I suspect that the most of music (or whatever), illegally downloaded would not have been purchased legitimately anyway.

Rember the sixties when LP's were often recorded to cassette by the friends of the LP owner, effectively file to file sharing. I don't recall retailers being told to police the sale of cassettes and ensure that they were not going to be used to illegally copy music.

The problem of illegal file sharing does not lies not with ISP's and is not solved by their prosecution,it lie's with the inability of the BPI (and its members) to produce a product that the public want at a price that the public will pay. The days of buying a CD album of 12 tracks, 10 of which are fillers, is over. We are now more discerning and have the ability to legally obtain the two album tracks we want.

That is why profits are dropping, not because of file sharing.

  • 34.
  • At 11:16 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Tim wrote:

The E-Commerce Directive states that ISPs should be treated as 'mere conduits', meaning that they can't be held responsible for what their customers download, they are merely providing them with access to the internet.

I think the Carphone Warehouse has European Law on it's side.

  • 35.
  • At 11:23 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Paul wrote:

Everything about the music industry can be placed under the umbrella of (rip the consumer off). From the overpriced CDs to the overpriced gigs that they spew out for talentless bands like Girls Aloud and anyone who has been on XFactor who seem to command a fee greater than that of an established (talented) performer. Even the act of buying an overpriced gig ticket seems to be a rip off. £4.95 per ticket for service charge and then the handling fees too. It can add 25% on to the face value price. I download music that I would never buy so they aren't losing anything from my pocket. I buy the good stuff which sad to say is few and far between these days and I use the downloads to give me something to listen too on my player (most of it lasts a few listens and is then dumped for being poor. The BPI really needs to get its act together and stop thinking that the consumer is there to be abused.

  • 36.
  • At 11:34 AM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • ROBERT wrote:

charles is right in doing so..... whats stopping me from buying a re-writer and a few cd's and copying the cd..... is the music companies going to goto every computer hardware store enforce them to check on every sale of re-writing equipment sold and check that the person isn't copying music.....not a hope in hell..... if the user wishes to break the law let it be on the head not the isp, no one is putting a gun to there head!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 37.
  • At 12:09 PM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Michael Mciver wrote:

How I wish there were more like CW leading our industries,someone who can see sense and logic in an evermore warped business world thats over protected from almost every angle in our society.
We,the "little"folk are the ones that need protecting,from all these greedy money grabbing vultures called business leaders.
I am very glad that I am with Talk Talk.

  • 38.
  • At 12:09 PM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • nick wrote:

I would never have gone out and purchased radiohead's "in rainbows" if i hadn't had the opportunity to download it and listen for free.

  • 39.
  • At 12:51 PM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • roooooned dreamz wrote:

I will keep downloading until my drives are full, go out, get more space, and start off again. I will not be ripped off any more by the music industry. Illegal? Don't make me laugh.

  • 40.
  • At 01:40 PM on 05 Apr 2008,
  • Paul wrote:

I find it interesting that it is Talk Talk that is standing up to this - they currently throttle bittorrent traffic down to an unusable level.

This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk