Well, as a discussion - please don't think I'm trying to lecture here - let's take it to an extreme. Do women exist so that weirdos can rape them? Is it the rape victim's fault that they are sexually assualted bacause they wear clothes that make them look "sexy"? No, they are raped because some people are prepared to carry out a violent crime. It is not the victim's fault. So is it with piracy. The victim should not have to police everyone, people should police themselves.

Your second point mentions "customers". If you steal from a shop you are not a customer, you are a shoplifter. The same basic rules apply here. Again why should the victim carry the blame here? If someone burgled your house would you blame yourself in any way or would you feel anger that someone broke everything they didn't want, stole everything that had value to you (including irreplaceable objects with sentimental attachments) and you know they will sell for a tenth of what you paid for it, defecated on the living-room carpet and then came back six months later to do the same again when you've replaced it all from your insurance claim?

I'm sure I've not been squeaky clean all of my life but I try very hard to get it right nowadays.

That is very idealistic though, if provocation and temptation were not prevalent in today's society to such a high level, we wouldn't need a police force or any regulatory bodies, but we do because its human nature to "bend rules", I think downloading music is a very different crime from some of what you describe above, yes theft it maybe, but poor old Madonna manages to get by on her pittance, as does anyone who's had a top 40 single these days.

I do know what you're saying, but I just believe the ISP should take more blame than they currently are, Virgin were sending warning letters at least a year ago, this for me is another demonstration of Karoo being too slow to act.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I am a member of BASCA (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors). This organisation spends a lot of time attempting to ensure that composers and authors receive monies for performance of their materials. Many "DJs" working in local pubs have a set-list made up of illegally acquired MP3s. They don't mind being paid for the gig but don't want to pay the very small fees to the PRS. Why is that? Remember, for every Madonna there are thousands of artists (artistes I should say but sounds a bit... you know) struggling to make a living without whom the whole music industry would become very mundane. If you're happy to listen to "stars" from talent shows backed by Simon Cowell et al and you're not interested in new creative talent then carry on doing what you are doing. Imagine no Buddy Holly, no Beatles, no Sex Pistols, no REM (please God), no Linkin Park, no System of a Down, no Cold Play, no Shinedown. The new versions of these bands might never emerge because the record compamies can't afford to bank-roll the illegal downloders. Believe me, it is crippling the music industry.

As I said I do know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with what your saying, but still if the ISP's wanted to stop it, we all know they could I don't believe they don't have the technology, could they not log a download from Limewire (example site), then realise where its coming from and stop connection to their servers from your IP? If you log into iTunes or Beatport etc, they should know this as being an approved source and allow the download.

You get approved retailers on-line for other goods, why not music?

They should block connections to TPB, Limewire and other such sources servers, it'd only take so long for their internal systems to be up to speed with genuine suppliers and on-line retailers, surely?

Do you see where I'm coming from even in some small part?

Not only do I see your point and agree that they are culpable in some part of aiding and abetting the illegal download of various media but I am really pleased that you have been so open and honest about your views. If you imagine that most of the people I discuss this with see it from the owner, performer and writer's perspective, it is really interesting to hear it from completely the opposite end of the spectrum.

I do, in a way sympathise with some of what you are trying to get across.
BUT
You do seem to infer that in the days before the 'record industry', music didn't exist.

hehe - before the record industry it was through the sales of sheet music and live performance that people made their living. Having been personally ripped off by a particular record company (i.e. never receiving one penny for anything sold or played on air) I don't necessarily think that they are whiter than white. But I do believe that until something can be done to ensure that all people pay in some way for fashion goods, movies, music, video games etc only the super-companies will prevail. It's the small independents that change the world and they are the ones most squeezed although the big boys are certainly not immune.

As you say, its aiding and abetting.

If you're "look out" for your shoplifting mate in Sainsburys, you get busted too!

If they are giving warnings before they cut people off then what is the problem.

You simply stop downloading the stuff, its not rocket science is it and the ISPs have a legal obligation to prevent this sort of thing.

Stop bleating about being ripped off by the REAL STUFF price wise, remember you can serve time in prison for it as well as get a very large fine. Cutting people off from the net is the least of the actions they could take, theft is theft.

The music industry has re-aligned itself to meet peoples needs and demands. Providing music to be downloaded legally at a reduced price compared with hard media. They saw the tide had turned and made sure that they were still making money from it.

The film industry has yet to do this. People want to be able to download films and stream them or store them on a hard disk. Until the film industry embraces this rather than trying to dictate how films are watched, then there will still be lots of illiegal downloading.

I have Sky Multiroom which means that Sky Player is available to me. As I take the train to London every week I sometimes get the chance to watch a movie on the way there and one on the way back (if I'm not working). If it's box-office I have to pay a download price and if it's basic movies then I don't (because I already pay for the movie package). Other programmes are available such as sports, documentaties, comedies etc. Unfortunately, it's against their rules to watch any of it outside the UK.

I'm talking more about options really. As an example:

Girls Aloud release a new album, which I'm desparate to get my hands on. I can legally do the following:

Buy the album on CD at a premium
Download the album to my pc/mobile at a reduced cost
Listen to the album for free via spotify (which may convince me to buy it)

Bruce Willis has a new film out so I have to do the following:

Go to the cinema to watch it and pay again if I want to watch it again
Wait 6 months to buy/Rent it on DVD/Blu Ray
Wait a year to watch it on Sky

I want to download it now and watch it on my PC or media streamer and I will gladly pay to do this, but I can't.

I'm not advocating illegal downlownloading but the film industry needs to get with the times and listen to what people want.