Apologies - please mentally replace the words 'stealing' or 'theft' with 'copyright violation' etc. in my previous posts! I'm simply trying to focus on the issues of rights and wrongs in certain actions, and don't want that to get waylaid by the definition of terms.

remmelt: I'm okay with saying 'Copyright violation' rather than theft, though that is a legal thing and I prefer to keep to more general and ethical terms.

And I understand the basic history of copyright - the real kick-off came with the rise of printing, when creating cheap, accurate copies of something became a real issue for the first time. We are in the middle of another huge epoch on that theme - highly accurate copies of very sophisticated things, like songs or films, can be transmitted and received globally, by many millions.

Under these circumstances, I think it's still fair that those who have invested in the production of, and/or are commonly and legally recognised as owners of, an original 'thing' should reserve the right to receive, on their legal terms, some compensation when someone else possesses a very accurate copy of that 'thing'.

But I like that 'one copy' law, that seems to waive these rights at a very low level where the actual loss is neglible. So I don't think it's 'black and white', just the opposite! The Dutch law seems quite well crafted to single out mass distribution of copies rather than copy-making itself. Fair enough, I wouldn't want to go to prison for forging the Mona Lisa if I only kept it in my shed, but would understand if the Louvre were pissed off if I'd given one to every sixth person on the planet.

However, I do disagree that 'if so many people are doing something that is against the law, the law is wrong'. If you take the principle that actions taken en masse are justified by the numbers involved, that allows various historical outrages, enslavements and tyrannies off the ethical hook, simply because 'everyone did it'! People are perfectly capable of doing something wrong (from just a little bit wrong to quite a lot) in their millions.

arkizzle: As I said, 'I can accept counter-measures, so long as they don't threaten genuinely legal use'. The fact is that this story was about some letters being sent out and the ambitions of the BPI - if it was about innocent people having their liberties infringed or being prosecuted, I would be as livid as anyone else. (I am regularly incensed by absurd violations in the name of domestic security on these pages!)

Antongarou: Many habitual d'loaders of illegal stuff simply refuse to even address the ethics. Talking economics is fine and very interesting, but it is only one dimension.

I agree with you that the ultimate end to this will very likely not be through prosecution, but rather a sensible pricing model and greater ease of access to products (...but there will still be thieves, forms of protection and prosecutions even then, I bet.)

I'm mainly just annoyed at the self-righteousness that infects the tone of some people's protest against an industry association that is planning to defend itself from plain theft. The aim itself seems entirely reasonable to me.

The lack of balance and reflection of some people just winds me up! One 'wrong' - the industry's use of DRM etc. - does not, I think, create a just reason to take the product in another form, for free. How can it? And that's not just a rhetorical question, I'm really interested to hear an answer.

However, you could, of course, buy the DRM'd CD *and* d'load the other version quite ethically!

@masamunecyrus:

Poor quality product does still not justify taking the efforts of a group of people for free, without their permission, when there is a commercial option (personally I think bootlegging of unavailable stuff is *not* an offence).

I'm not saying record companies etc. aren't dicks, but simply that we are in denial about the fact that it is theft. And I'm not saying that it is a serious offence to nick a few songs, but just that record companies *are* justified in taking protective measures.

Does the fact that lots of people do it mean it isn't wrong, or isn't stealing? I just can't see how. It seems to me that the novel ability to intercept intangible data that, assembled, make a song, film or whatever has created psychological conditions by which people can persuade themselves that it isn't proper theft.

This, combined with the relative anonymity, has created a situation where millions of people nick stuff all the time - stuff which has been worked on by several people over a long period of time. Does any of this mean the laws should be changed so they can carry on taking the stuff for free?

I keep getting the impression that many people have blinded themselves to the ethics of all this because they have unconsciously subscribed to an orthodoxy that flatly refuses to be self-critical - possibly because it also has very many good intentions and also because it sees itself as an underdog David against various corporate Goliaths.

But this is more like the ethic of an impoverished, starving petty thief, stealing pears from a cart in Victorian London, than that of a bunch of overfed 21st century Westerners sat at their iMacs! Aren't people stealing simply because they think they can get away with it, and attempting to justify it because because of greed?

I'm no conservative and not in any way related to any of the industries concerned - I just don't want to see what I think is a lack of reflection on ethical issues, and don't want to read a Geeks' Fox News.

Considering how much (due and correct) scrutiny is usually seen on these pages, I am surprised that such an unreflective and unheeding attitude occurs in this piece and in the comments.

So Virgin are 'sending out letters to thousands of customers warning them that infringement has been detected on their network connections' and 'The BPI ultimately wants internet companies to implement a "three strikes and out" rule to warn and ultimately disconnect the estimated 6.5 million customers whose accounts are used for regular criminal activity'.

So what? Some people might not know they should secure their wifi *if* they want to protect their service from others. And - on a related but essentially seperate note - the BPI want to do something about people stealing music. Fair enough.

I mean, it is stealing, isn't it? I know record companies do all sorts of shit, but two wrongs don't make a right...right? Can we look at the ethics coolly, or does the enjoyment of 'sharing files' overwhelm the rational mind? It really seems to for many people. I admit I've done it, but I can accept counter-measures, so long as they don't threaten genuinely legal use.

I'm really surprised that you have taken the reported words of a new CEO as cause enough to try and start a campaign. I'd rather wait to see outcomes.

As suggested previously, this is fiction written by Miles Kington.