<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:ent="http://www.purl.org/NET/ENT/1.0/">
  <channel>
    <title>Curiouser and Curiouser! on file-sharing</title>
    <link>http://matt.blogs.it/</link>
    <description>RSS feed for topic file-sharing</description>
    <copyright>Copyright 2009 Matt Mower. Some rights reserved.</copyright>
    <generator>Squib/0.5.0.382</generator>
    <managingEditor>self@mattmower.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>self@mattmower.com</webMaster>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <item>
      <title>On file sharing</title>
      <link>http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002994.html</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:33:14 +0100</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Opinions in the music industry appear to be divided over the draconian new rules regarding file sharing that our dimwit, Stalinist, labour government want to hang us with. I just read this piece in the &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/13/filesharing-crackdown-rift"&gt;Guardian online&lt;/a&gt; and thought a quote by, I think, Dave Gilmour is interesting:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;"If an artist wants to give away their music, that's up to them. It shouldn't be up to pirates," he says. "A download costs 79p. Could you name me something that you could buy that would last you forever and give you pleasure for 79p? This is not a lot for people to ask for."&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I totally agree but, at the same time, I think the law and potential redress should acknowledge that we are talking about things worth &amp;pound;0.79&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00002994.html</guid>
      <ent:cloud ent:href="http://matt.blogs.it/topics/">
      </ent:cloud>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>