And why is there no mention at all of the fact that Lily Allen herself was until a few days ago filesharing mp3s illegally, it seems - the media covers her crusade against filesharers, yet there's no mention of her making "mix tapes" (which were mp3s shared on her MySpace, and later her website, until a few days ago) of other artists' music, without permission
Her defence was "I didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry" - since most of us don't work in the music industry, will this be a defence if we're caught filesharing?
Come on BBC, you're meant to give us the full story showing all sides of the argument, no just her side!
"Bob Lefsetz, even questioned whether artists were bright enough to comment on this issue."
Nowhere does the link say "bright". I'm not sure of your point - just as Lily has a right to argue on her blog, other people have a right to criticise her arguments. We are supposed to feel sorry, because there's one "unkind" comment posted on the entire Internet somewhere? Why isn't James Allan being hounded for his offensive and sexist comments? If Lily Allen has persuaded the FAC to her side, it hasn't been due to the validity of her arguments, more likely her tantrum left artists not wanting to appear divided on such an issue, especially as they then opted for the "restriction not disconnection" response, which sounds like an Argument to moderation.
Most of the "vitriol" has been targetted against those who dare to oppose this insane and draconian law (and many of us who do are, in fact, pro-copyright - and evidently have a better understanding and respect for copyright law than Lily Allen, who plagiarises and pirates to suit her own ends). She's given as a good as she gets.
And to be blunt, welcome to the Internet. Is "Someone wrote an unkind comment" newsworthy? No. It also has nothing to do with the validity of the law.
On another note, the FAC's claim that reduced Internet access would leave "basic email and web access functional" is nonsense from a technical point of view. This isn't the 1990s anymore - even daily web use can add up to 10s or 100s MBs, let alone the size of essential Windows Update security downloads or other software updates. This would not only be almost as bad as total disconnection, but would be highly irresponsible, allowing viruses and malware to spread due to people being unable to update their machines. It also seems unfair that someone would then be paying for a fast Internet connection, and not getting the speed that they pay for. And it would unfairly discriminate between kinds of copyrighted material - sharing smaller files such as copyrighted photographs, software applications, or indeed articles plagiarised from Techdirt, would still be possible. Evidently, the FAC only care about themselves and no one else.
ravcasleygera: "The sheer amount of testimony on the blog from a range of people across the industry, saying that file-sharing is really threatening small bands"
But there wasn't that much - out of thousands of unsigned bands, it's easy to get a handful who would agree with her. You're seeing a biased sample - countless more who disagree (and I do know many who do not share her views - indeed, there's plenty of music given away for free) wouldn't be posted; they don't have a voice. I myself, whilst not a professional musician, am a software developer, whose work depends on copyright. I oppose this law, and I think it's disgusting that whilst I work hard to respect copyrights in material I distribute, Lily Allen herself gets to ignore and abuse copyrights, whilst lobbying for a law that would punish the rest of us for doing so!
The most obvious point is that Lily Allen herself had different views a few years ago, as she happily shared both her own, and other people's music (without permission). Only when she's now rich and famous does she change her views.
Not to say it's just a BDSM issue of course - there are many reasons to worry about such an intrusive scheme.
@clampdip: Don't give them ideas! This Government has and will gladly support censorship, on the grounds of fighting "the big players" - although yes, in practice, such laws have adversely affected minority and alternative producers, non-commercial producers and even those just taking a private photo, whilst mainstream industry is unaffected.
(And I would like to see evidence at claims of a correlation - which even if it existed, doesn't imply causation. I'd question your "seemed to get worse" - the whole reason we get these laws is because of claims that it's getting worse, and therefore something must be done, but no evidence of whether things are getting worse or not has been presented.)