Daily use of the Internet has certainly transformed our lives today. The ease of communicating, learning and exploring the World Wide Web with just a few clicks is the main reason why this phenomenal technology has become an integral part of our daily lives. However, just like a coin has two sides, the illegal sharing of copyrighted works such as apps, games, movies and music via the Internet has increased significantly. As a result, authors of copyrighted works are concerned about the serious impact this has had on revenues from those works. Although the consequences of file sharing on copyright holders are not purely conclusive, the UK government is attempting to implement certain policies that will attempt to enforce copyright law and protect against growth future of the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file. -sharing methods. In the following essay I will examine the current situation of file sharing in the UK. Additionally, I will also assess the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998 and how file shares can be pursued under this Act as well as future legislation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay It was in 1988 that the first forms of file sharing techniques were introduced. An American university student, Shawn Fanning, developed Napster. Users were connected to central Napster servers from which they could download any song they wanted by searching within the app. Users of the application in turn had to upload their music collection to the application for lasting sharing. Such a system is called a P2P network because sharing was facilitated by connecting peers through the central server, but the system itself did not host any music files. As of February 2001, Napster's file-sharing system and website attracted 17 million users in the United States. However, this led to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filing a lawsuit against the company. Although the company claimed its activities were legal because it did not host any music files, a court injunction forced it to shut down. This was the first fight against illegal music sharing which continues today. Despite Napster's closure, the legacy left behind was immense. In the early 2000s, many other P2P sites flourished, including Kazaa, eDonkey, and LimeWire. However, the development of BitTorrent marked the beginning of a whole new generation of P2P file sharing. This system required users to download a small file called a "torrent" which communicated with the "tacker". The "stapler" searches for other users who have parts of the file, then uploads them to the user's client where the file fragments are joined together. Unlike Napster, the transfer speed has been greatly improved. The exponential increase in the number of users using these file sharing techniques in recent years has led the UK government to strengthen copyright laws to restrict their use. However, research by the Strategic Advisory Council for Intellectual Property Policy demonstrated that “at least seven million people” have accessed online content illegally (Telegraph, 2009). To give some context, 5,600 people volunteeredto upload their music download data to the “iTunes Registry” website. A study carried out for an online blog showed that 64% of downloaded music was never listened to by users. It is therefore not economical for the user to pay for a song that they will not even listen to. This shows that most of the music people download is pirated. While this research may not be an accurate representation of music usage patterns among the UK population, it nevertheless adds evidence of a broader view of P2P file sharing and how the government is limited in its prosecution of a large number of file shares. .The creative industries have claimed that due to file sharing they have suffered a loss of millions of pounds due to loss of income from retail sales. According to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), “sales have been difficult” (BBC News 2013). Additionally, European research found that as a result of this problem, “these creative industries are suffering devastating economic losses.” As for the problem, the International Chamber of Commerce has predicted that a "quarter of a million" jobs in the UK "could be lost by 2015" due to online piracy. Another study claimed that the loss of income would amount to around 10 million euros. lost in 2008 alone. The figures presented may be ambiguous to some extent. The reason being that these reports seem to assume that legitimate downloads would equate to illegal downloads made by the user. This cannot, however, be the case. iTunes statistics suggest that 64% of illegally downloaded soundtracks are not even listened to. Therefore, the figure of 10 million rather applies to pirated content in general and does not only concern the music industry. were considerably affected by the act of piracy which led them to initiate numerous legal proceedings against the offenders. On the contrary, a study demonstrates the excessive exaggeration of the negative impact of file sharing on the music industry. It was found by Leading Questions, a music industry company, that a typical file sharer spends "four and a half times more on paid music downloads than the average fan." Combined with other research findings, this suggests that music piracy is not the only factor affecting negative sales in the industry. Although the study was conducted among "music fans" rather than regular file-sharing users, it may not really tell the whole story. However, a substantial decrease in illegal music sharing has been observed in recent years. A 5% drop in illegal music sharing between December 2007 and January 2009 was recorded in a study conducted by Music Ally. The same study also showed a 16% decrease in file sharing among 14-18 year olds. This significant decline in piracy can be attributed to the fact that the music industry underwent significant changes during the years 2008 and 2009. The cost of purchasing individual pieces of music was reduced to just pennies, leading to more fans to buy the unique piece of music instead of getting it. Claims from the creative industries that file sharing would have a huge impact on their profitability are countered by the fact that the loss, while significant, is not likely to have huge economic consequences. But where does the government intervene? What role does it have in restricting such activities? In the United Kingdom, the Copyright Act 1988,designs and patents makes illegal sharing of protected content subject to prosecution. It ensures that the original creator of the content benefits from their efforts and prohibits others from using the material for their own benefit. The Copyright Act can protect any creative and artistic activity such as literary work, musical work, dramatic work and artistic work. Copyright grants the author “the exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, perform and adapt the work and to communicate it to the public.” There is a common misconception that the Internet is a “copyright free zone.” The cause is the ease of access to the protected work. To demonstrate this, we can consider the most popular search engine in the world: Google. The “image search” option presents the user with millions of images related to the topic and gives the freedom to choose and copy according to their own will. Although it is written next to the image that it may be subject to copyright, an average user will rarely pay attention to it. Additionally, no proper information is given on what “Copyright” actually means. This is precisely the root of the problem. Lack of awareness about copyright infringement and its consequences is the main issue that the government needs to address. Without government intervention, it would be very difficult for private sector publishers to recover their lost revenue and deal with these file sharing techniques. The rate of copyright infringement has increased. The catalyst could be the growing number of Internet users and ease of access. Since the web is not limited to a single country, but more like an international communication platform, this further adds to the difficulty for copyright authors trying to enforce their rights due to different national laws affecting different websites. Despite the right to protect content, some users share content so much that in my opinion it is not practical for copyright owners to take action against infringers. There is no one to be held responsible. While the prosecution of some offenders may reflect a change in attitude that appears to be taking place in the music industry, it is unlikely to stop thousands of people from breaking the law in the future. Since 1991, copyright law in the United Kingdom has remained the strictest. even. Therefore, considering the increasing rate of piracy, it was obvious that some amendments were needed to address this growing problem. The Digital Economy Bill was introduced to reduce the rate of file sharing by "70%" in 12 months from its introduction on June 12, 2010. This bill places more responsibility on file sharing providers. Internet Access (ISP) so that they take any action against the file sharers. Numerous letters to violators must be sent by ISPs and "if this proves insufficient, they could be blocked from accessing the Internet by the Internet service provider." Additionally, if deemed inappropriate, the UK Government reserves the right to restrict access by the UK public to any website. However, this new bill has received a lot of criticism from ISPs as it involves a huge cost for writing letters and reducing connections, which incurs considerable costs. reduces their profit margin. Google Inc. has also expressed concern about the need to restrict websites when users eventually find an alternative to restriction. On the contrary, the music industry is rather optimistic.