I think it’s worth pointing out that I’m not advocating piracy. I buy all my music from iTunes (79p really isn’t much); I watch all my films at the cinema (£13.50 for as many films as I like in a month is peanuts). I do know people who barely touch the cinema anymore because they download most of what’s out there and then don’t catch it at the cinema – whilst I don’t consider that theft (as mentioned in the article), it’s certainly bypassing what to me seems a largely fair means of revenue collection. As you say how much of my hard earned makes it to the people who actually made the film? I don’t know – a dedicated file sharer would probably argue my consumer habits benefit iTunes and Cineworld most, but then of course their behaviour can too. What if I download the Sugababes’ new album just to check out if I like it? Studies show people with the ability to try before they buy invariably do by, and it’s notable that people like Elton and Lily don’t have figures to hand to prove otherwise.

You make a great point in splitting the different media up into the differing reasons why they may be illegally downloaded, and as the Featured Artists Coalition accepts, it’s impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. Shutting households’ internet connections down entirely is an asinine way to respond to the fears (legitimate or otherwise) of the music and film industries (haven’t even touched TV yet). Technology has again moved on, and as with recordable CDs and cassettes (tape and video) before them, creative industries haven’t died as a result. I think most people realise that a James Blunt or District 9 isn’t going to die financially as a result of some of their potential customers filesharing – word of mouth, sharing a love of music (or film, and I take your point about the different experience) and trying before buying are all important behavioural trends which the Barlows, Allens and Johns are failing to take into consideration, and which help their industry. And I’d love to see someone try to prove that cinema is dying because everyone who illegally downloads doesn’t then buy the DVD, watch it on paid cable or watch it in some cinema somewhere in the world.

Surely the issue is about scale. Kids sharing the latest media with friends and talking about them must be a good thing and can’t credibly face the sort of punishment Mandelson advocates. But artists should be paid fairly for what they do. I wonder whether large scale downloading would continue to flourish if the perception were there that rights holders (who in large measure are not the creators) made sure creators got their fair share. I ask: how has that perception changed over the last 25 years or so?

Put simply, an event movie can only really be enjoyed at the cinema and people who would be inclined to watch it properly will go and buy a ticket regardless of what they may have dowloaded. Watching films is also a communal activity, and most people seem to appreciate that the audiene is part of the experience.

Music is a different beast altogether – for the vast majority of music consumers, listening to music is a solitary act, done through headphones and currently using a portable machine playing an MP3 file – ultimately no added value is derived from buying a legal copy. I am old enough to prefer to acquire my music collection in physical form, as a CD with a printed cover and booklet in a jewel case. Even so, on getting the CD home I rip it to MP3 and the the CD is most likely never played again (and even that one play was at high ripping speeds, rather than to listen to). I don’t even actually own a dedicated CD player at present, using my DVD player output through my home cinema system for the very rare occasions when I play CDs. My DVD player is also capable of playing DivX films usually collected through file sharing systems.

Furthermore, while some movies do generate dedicated fanbases, most are only ever watched once or twice – even DVDs are very rarely watched with any frequency. Music, on the other hand, is generally sold on the principle that a sing or album will be listened to over and again. I know that I’m not alone in thinking that, in my own little world, I have less trouble with the idea of downloading a ripped movie which I know I will watch once and delete, whereas I’m likely to listen to an album several times before I’ve even made up my mind that I like it! On the other hand, downloading a movie in any kind of viewable resolution will probably take at least a couple of hours. An album will be transferred in under five minutes, and a single track in less time than it will take to listen to it!

On the question of economics, there is also a separate issue that we’re all aware that commercially successful music will be played on legal radio stations who will pay relevant royalty fees to those responsible and so the artists will not be entirely out of pocket – movies might get sold to TV stations and the studios factor such sales into their budgets, but how much of that cash actually filters down to the artists concerned who (apart from mega-stars) were paid to appear and that’s it.

Anyway, all of that isn’t really a proposition to move the debate you’ve tried to create in any specific direction, just to add a whole new series of elements which make the topic even more contentious and difficult to talk about!