Repeat offenders who persist in illegally downloading music from file-sharing sites such as Limewire could be blocked from accessing the Web under government proposals.

“Technology and consumer behavior is fast-changing and it’s important that Ofcom has the flexibility to respond quickly to deal with unlawful file-sharing,” says Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

Opponents of the idea are more succinct. They say cutting people off is unnecessary and potentially illegal. Human rights have been invoked.

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, they say, has been successfully leaned on by lobbyists for the creative industries whose products are being hijacked.

The music industry, which is losing millions through illegal downloads, is naturally  pleased. The industry body UK Music says: “UK Music is pleased that Government is proposing accelerated and proportionate action to meet their stated ambition of reducing illegal file-sharing by 70-80% within 2-3 years.”

What do you think? Is there a case for such drastic measures?

Related blog: Who benefits from a file-sharing crackdown?

**Tom Dunmore is Editor-in-Chief of Stuff magazine. The views expressed are his own.**

Amazon’s music download service has finally arrived in the UK. That’s great news for music fans, who will benefit from lower prices and greater choice - but it’s not going to save the music industry from the dominance of iTunes.

After all, Amazon’s download service has been running for a year in America, but it’s still way behind iTunes. In fact, even if you add all of Amazon’s CD sales into the mix, iTunes is still bigger.

Here in the UK, iTunes has well over 50 percent of the music download market (some put the figure as high as 80 percent). And that’s despite Amazon’s biggest online rival Play.com selling MP3 music at knockdown prices for the past six months. Why? Because neither Play.com nor Amazon can match Apple’s integration of iTunes software and iPod hardware.

More importantly for the music industry, despite all the new rivals in the download market, there’s nowhere near enough music being sold to make up for the slump in CD sales.

The last figures published by the BPI, the UK's music industry body, showed that total year-on-year album sales were down 5.5 percent. Digital sales were up, but not enough: 7.5million less CDs were sold in the first nine months of 2008 compared with the same period in 2007. Download album sales were up less than 3.5m.

And that was before the economic downturn really began to bite. To compound the music industry’s woes, the UK high street’s biggest music retailer, Woolworths, has gone into administration – along with its music distribution arm Entertainment UK.  Supermarkets are having to source their CDs direct from record companies, and megastore operator Zavvi has been forced to cancel all orders through its website.

It’s not all bad news for consumers: the treacherous market conditions have forced the music industry to do away with the Digital Rights Management (DRM), which limited how music could be played and made most download music incompatible with the massively popular iPod.  The end of DRM means that Amazon, and Play.com can offer their entire catalogues in ultra-compatible MP3 format – unlike iTunes, which still sells some songs with DRM.

Amazon’s entry to the download market will help push down prices, too – much has been made of Amazon’s £3-per-album introductory offer. But while price is important, it’s by no means the killer issue online – after all, the easy availability (and overwhelming popularity) of free music illegally downloaded from peer-to-peer services makes ‘bargain’ £3 albums a pretty tricky sell.

The key to Apple’s success has been convenience and ease of use: you can buy music in the same software you use to listen to music – or even buy it directly from your iPod. Until Amazon can produce something quicker and simpler than iTunes, it’s destined to be a bit-part player in the download music market.

Read Tom’s blog at www.stuff.tv/blogs/future

A woman who shared a pinball game online has been ordered to pay 16,000 pounds in compensation and legal costs to its creator.

The Patents County Court in London ruled in favour of TopWare Interactive, a U.S. computer game developer that said she had infringed its copyright.

The case is the latest attempt by the entertainment industry to try to protect its music, games and films from growing threat of online piracy, which it says is killing business.

Quicker Internet connections have sparked a boom in people swapping music, films or TV programmes.

The Recording Industry Association of America says file sharing has hit profits, put songwriters out of work and made it harder for new bands to get a contract.

“The crime is theft,” it says on its website. “Everyone who makes, enjoys or earns a living in music is hurt.”

File sharers hotly dispute that argument.

Copyright infringement is not the same as theft because the owner is not deprived of their property.

You wouldn’t expect to end up in court if you loaned a book or DVD to a friend, they argue. So why should it be any different with digital tracks or films?

Cracking down on file sharers will simply drive them further underground, making it even harder for companies to make money out of their content, according to contributors on the Open Rights Group website. 

Regardless of the legal arguments, do you think file sharing is morally wrong? Do you think it stifles creativity by reducing the amount available to spend on new acts?

Teenagers love music and films - but today’s generation don’t expect to pay for them when they can download them for free over the Internet.

The entertainment industry says it is losing millions of pounds from online piracy but Internet service providers have been reluctant to police the activities of their customers.

Now six of Britain’s largest Internet providers have agreed a plan to tackle piracy, agreeing to send warning letters to those suspected of illegal file-sharing.

If the tactic doesn’t succeed, sanctions could be introduced such as disconnection for those warned three times, or filtering to prevent illegal tracks from being downloaded.

What do you think? Are the plans fair and workable? Do you expect to get a warning letter?