I didn't want to get into this

Four major record companies (EMI, Sony BMG, Universal & Warner) have brought a High Court action to compel Eircom to prevent its networks being used for the illegal downloading of music. This is the last desperate sting of a dying wasp. A greedy, uncompromising, and inhumane wasp. I'm going to give my two cents on the supposed reasons that people shouldn't download illegally.

1. It's Illegal
Okay, that is true. But so is withholding royalties, flyposting and price-fixing, and so are payolas. Did illegality stop anyone recording their favourite songs off the radio, or their favourite TV shows/movies off the TV with blank media? Did the MPAA not make the same claim of impending doom when VHS technology came on the market? It is true that there is far more piracy now, but there is also far more content available due to the advent of home recording equipment.

Does it strike you as strange that one of the biggest producers of blank media is Sony (also one of the "Big 4" record companies), when they campaign with wild statistics against the so called robbery of their (not their artists) property? Can corporations like Sony have their cake and eat it too? Yes they can, they always have and they will continue to.

2. It's Immoral
This is where it gets interesting. If we're talking what is immoral here, then so is hiding programmes on CDs that make people's computers vulnerable to viruses, so is bribing radio stations for airplay time, so is withholding legal advice from immature artists, and so is withholding monies from performers. We're not talking about shining lights of morality and righteousness here. I'd say major record labels run a close second only to the petro-chemical industry and the arms manufacturing industry when it comes to a lack of morality.

How can a member of a band (5ive) that sold close to 20 million albums end up working as a postman? Take a look at this example (albeit with roughly drawn figures) to see how it happens.

How can labels through DRM decide that after you have legally purchased an album that you should not make copies or transfer from one device to another? Is it not now your property to do with it as you like? Is it possible to purchase something and not own it?

How come in most cases legal downloads cost as much as hard-copy records when there is no hard-copy and no hard-copy marketing? Is every song on an album really worth 99c?

How can Warner pay it's top five executives over $21million (three times their operating income) in salary and bonuses in the same year that they lay off 1,600 employees and 93 of the 193 artists on their US roster?

I am honestly only scraping the surface of the morality debate here. It's common knowledge that gigging and merchandise is a far more lucrative business for a band than producing an album. There is also a dichotomy where the recent misery of record companies is offset in some part by the explosion of new bands who are home-recording. These bands through the advent of filesharing have found audiences they would never have in the recent past of industry-controlled studios, radio stations and record shops. I believe that this is purely an evolutionary step in the music industry, and that those who do not make the steps to keep up will get left behind. In any industry changes happen and there are re-adjustments - it is the sign of a spoiled and too comfortable industry when instead of remaining dynamic they complain and issue legal challenges. This is the 21st century - the age of digital media - so put your claims of bankruptcy behind you, get with the times, stop ripping people off and drop the calls of immorality. Muppets.