- Andrew Robinson is the leader of the Pirate Party UK. The opinions expressed are his own.-

Draconian penalties for file sharing were threatened by the government on Tuesday. In addition to the previously announced 50,000 pound maximum penalty for "IP offences" we are now told that whole families are to be disconnected from the net if just one member is accused of sharing files.

Leaving aside the obvious injustice of this proposal and the fact that our court service which handled 2.1 million cases last year is not going to be able to handle the 4.9 million extra cases that the government's stated target of a 70 percent reduction in Britain's 7 million file sharers would would necessitate, I think we should also consider who stands to benefit from this proposed crackdown.

There are two major ways that the general public currently access copyrighted content without paying the rights holders. One is through file sharing, where information is freely shared for no financial gain, and the public participate in what is effectively a giant library where even the rarest snipped of music or least appreciated TV show is altruistically preserved for posterity.

The other is through the purchase of counterfeit CDs and DVDs, where organised criminals exploit the work of others for financial gain, and tend to concentrate their efforts on solely on the latest blockbuster hits.

Inexplicably, the government are prepared to trample over all semblance of natural justice in order to stamp out the former, while completely ignoring the latter. The inevitable consequence of this is that people will switch from file sharing to buying counterfeit products, which is a seemingly trivial offence with no history of incurring terrifying penalties.

These measures will not help the preservation of our culture, or win votes for the Labour party, or boost the media industry's profits. The actual beneficiaries of the file sharing crackdown will be inevitably be the organised criminal gangs producing counterfeit goods.

The Pirate Party UK proposes legalising file sharing when it is done without making profit, a policy that would allow enforcement measures to be focused on real criminals, the very gangs of organised counterfeiters who must currently be rubbing their hands in glee at Lord  Mandelson's file sharing crackdown.

Related Blog: Cutting off the music file-sharers

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?

The Pirate Party, which originated in Sweden, is now a registered political party in Britain and set to run candidates in the next general election.  Its aim is to reform copyright law, abolish the patent system and ensure privacy rights for all citizens.

The party, with branches in more than 25 countries, argues that file-sharing and peer-to-peer networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized, based on the idea that “the Internet could become the greatest public library ever created.”

Combatting  levels of surveillance and control put in place by governments in response to the 9/11 attacks in New York are also top of the agenda.

The party wants to introduce an alternative to pharmaceutical patents throughout Europe that it says will save on drug costs to governments.

Would you vote for the Pirate Party in a general election?

Four Swedish men linked to The Pirate Bay, a huge free file-sharing website, have each been jailed for a year for breaching copyright and ordered to pay the equivalent of 2.4 million pounds in compensation.

The Pirate Bay allows users to post music, movies, computer games and other files which other people can then download for free, thus depriving entertainment companies and artists of royalties. The website does not store the files themselves but does provide links so that users can find them somewhere else.

Following the landmark case, analysts said the guilty verdict could help music and film companies recoup millions of dollars in lost revenues but they questioned whether it would do much to stop web users illegally downloading files.

The men linked to The Pirate Bay were charged last year with conspiracy to break copyright law and related offences but denied the charges. They described the outcome of the trial as “bizarre”.

What do you think of the guilty verdict? Was the court right to jail and fine the men? Was it an important step in protecting copyrighted materials against illegal downloads, or was it unfair considering that no such material is stored on The Pirate Bay’s servers and no actual swapping of files takes place on the site?

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?