Tim, I’m not thrilled about Web Sheriff either. I thought that the interesting element was that they don’t go straight to the big stick, and instead go with the social niceties first (an approach which seems sorely lacking in these days of kajillion dollar lawsuits).

“as it happens, we are currently in the process of compiling archives of bootleg recordings of various artists / clients and shall then be making them officially available off these artists’ web-sites for the benefit of their fans worldwide … .. this way, the artists / bands shall have some say over how their live work is presented on-line / to-the-world and, equally, they can ensure the best in terms of the quality of the material that is uploaded (especially if they have recordings taken straight off the desk).”

isn’t it nice to think that we might not be playing a zero-sum game?

Anyway. The Web Sheriff guy always strikes a slightly off-key note with me, if possibly just because his nom de guerre is so inane. Stopping leaks is great – musicians gotta eat – but I don’t love the artist’s (or, more to the point?, their label’s) representatives looking over my shoulder to decide whether they approve of how I’m enjoying their work, either.

I am also a student and will soon be starting research on peoples views and behaviour with regards to marketing and music piracy for my dissertation. This idea of offering the survey link to music blogs is one that i think could be very useful in gaining a good insight into the real music enthusiasts and one i will definate try to utilise when i come to do mine.

With regards to filesharing i completely agree that it would be impossible to stop. Digital content, by design, is reproducable without the need for any physical or original source. As such once one copy exists there is always the possibility of another exact copy being made. As a marketing student i am interested more in how products/services/content can compete with the free alternative.

I agree with Bragg’s conclusions about the practical solution, although I don’t think the argument you note is a particularly compelling one. It presumes a slippery slope that I’m not convinced of. Industry would, as he suggests, keep asking for tighter and tighter restrictions, but that doesn’t mean that they’d get them. In general, as more draconian measures get put in place, the affected constituencies get larger and more powerful. Consider, for example, the differential impact of Cory Doctorow railing against attacks on net neutrality versus Google sending executives to testify before Congress on the issue. Admittedly, this approach often still results in suboptimal outcomes, which is why I think Bragg’s answer is definitely the better one, but scare tactics aren’t the way to make his case.