The 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 as a coin has two sides, there has been a huge increase in the illegal sharing of protected works such as apps, games, films and music via the Internet. As a result, authors of copyrighted material are concerned about the serious impact this has had on revenues from such works. While the implications of file sharing on copyright holders are not purely definitive, the UK Government is looking to implement some policies that will attempt to uphold copyright law and protect against the further growth of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) files ). - sharing methods. In the following essay I will look at the current file sharing situation in the UK. In addition, I will also look at copyright, the Designs and Patents Act 1998 and how file sharing can be prosecuted under that Act, as well as future legislation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 1988, the first forms of file sharing technique were introduced. An American university student Shawn Fanning developed Napster. Users were connected to Napster's central servers from which they could download the song of their choice by searching within the application. In turn, app users had to upload their music collection to the app for sustainable sharing. This system is called a P2P network because sharing was facilitated by peer matchmaking through the central server but the system itself did not host any music files. In "February (2001), Napster's file-sharing system and website attracted 17 million users in the United States." However, this led to the filing of a lawsuit against the company by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Although the company claimed that its operations were legal as it did not host music files, a court injunction forced it to shut down. This was the first fight against illegal music sharing which continues to this day. Even though Napster was shut down, the legacy it left behind was enormous. Many other P2P sites flourished in the early 2000s, including Kazaa, eDonkey, and LimeWire. However, the development of BitTorrent marked the beginning of a completely new generation of P2P file sharing. This system required users to download a small file called a "torrent" which communicated with the "tacker". The "tacker" searches for other users with parts of the file and then uploads them to the user's client where the file fragments are stitched together. Unlike Napster, the transfer speed has been significantly improved. The exponential increase in the number of users using these file sharing techniques in recent years has led the British government to tighten copyright laws to limit their use. However, research conducted by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy showed that “at least seven million people” have illegally accessed online content (Telegraph, 2009). To give some context, 5600 people volunteered to upload their music download data to the "iTunes Registry" website. A study conducted for an online blog found that 64% of music downloaded was never played by users. Therefore, it is not economical for the user to pay for onesong he won't even listen to. This shows that most of the music downloaded by people is pirated. While this research may not be an accurate representation of the music usage patterns of the UK population, it does add evidence to support the bigger picture of P2P file sharing and how the government is limited in prosecuting large numbers of sharing of files. The creative industries have claimed that, due to the act of file sharing, they have suffered a multi-million pound loss in lost retail revenue. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) states that "sales have been difficult" (BBC News 2013). Furthermore, European research found that due to this problem "these creative industries suffer devastating economic losses". To give some context to this issue, the International Chamber of Commerce has predicted that by 2015 in the UK "250,000 jobs could be lost" due to online piracy. Another study claims that revenue losses amount to approximately 10 million euros lost in 2008 alone. The numbers presented may be ambiguous to some extent because these reports seem to assume that legitimate downloads equal illegal downloads made by the user. This, however, is not the case. iTunes statistics suggest that 64% of illegally downloaded soundtracks aren't even listened to. Thus, the 10 million figure is more likely to apply to pirated content in general and not just the music industry. In any case, it appears that these creative industries have been significantly affected by the act of piracy which has led them to take extensive legal action against violators. On the contrary, one study shows that the negative impact of file sharing on the music industry is overly exaggerated. Leading Questions, a music industry company, found that a typical file sharer spends "four and a half times more on paid music downloads than the average fan." When compared to other research findings, this suggests that music piracy is not the only factor influencing negative sales in the industry. However, the study was conducted on "music fans" rather than regular file sharing users, so it may not be truly indicative of the situation. However, the last two years have seen a substantial decrease in illegal music sharing. A study conducted by Music Ally recorded a 5 percent drop in illegal music sharing between December 2007 and January 2009. The same study also showed a 16 percent decrease in file sharing by kids aged 14 and 18 years old. This significant decline in piracy can be attributed to the fact that the music industry underwent significant changes throughout 2008 and 2009. The cost of purchasing individual music tracks was reduced to just a few cents, which brought in more fans to purchase the individual piece of music instead of obtaining The creative industries' claims that file sharing heavily impacts their profitability are countered by the fact that the rather significant loss is not likely to have huge economic consequences. But where does government come into play? What role does it have in limiting such activities? In the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes the illegal sharing of copyrighted content punishable. He ensures that the original creator of the content benefits from his efforts and refrains from other people using the material for their own benefit. The Copyright Act can protect any creative and artistic endeavorsuch as literary work, musical work, dramatic work and artistic work. Copyright gives the author the "exclusive right to reproduce, publish, perform and adapt the work and to communicate it to the public". There is a prevalent misconception that the Internet is a "copyright-free zone". The cause is the easy accessibility of the protected work. To demonstrate this we can take into consideration the most famous 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 as per one's will. Although it is written next to the image that it may be subject to copyright, a typical user will rarely pay attention to it. Furthermore, no adequate information is provided about what "Copyright" actually means. This is the very root of the problem. Lack of awareness regarding copyright infringement and its consequences is the main cause is the main issue that needs to be looked into by the government. Without government enervation, it would be very difficult for private sector publishers to recover lost revenue and cope with these file sharing techniques. There has been an increase in the rate of copyright infringement. The catalyst could be the growing number of Internet users and the ease of its accessibility. Since globally, the web is not limited to just one country, but is more like an international communication platform, this further increases the difficulty for copyright authors trying to enforce their right due to the different national laws affecting different websites. Despite the right to protect content, some users share content so much that, in my opinion, it is impractical for copyright holders to take any action against infringers. There is no one person to hold responsible. While taking legal action against some violators may reflect a change in attitude that appears to be taking place in the music industry, this is unlikely to stop thousands of people from breaking the law in the future. Since 1991 copyright law in the UK has remained the Same norm. Therefore, considering the growing rate of piracy, it was evident that some amendments were needed to address the growing problem. The Digital Economy Act was introduced to reduce the rate of file sharing by "70%" in 12 months from its introduction on 12 June 2010. This Act places greater responsibility on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to undertake any action against file sharers. ISPs must send numerous letters to the offender and "if this proves insufficient, the Internet Service Provider may block them from going online." Furthermore, if deemed inappropriate, the UK Government reserves the right to restrict access to any website by the UK public. However, this new bill has been highly criticized by ISPs as it incurs a huge cost in writing letters and reducing connections which significantly reduces their profit margin. Google Inc. has also expressed concern about the need to throttle websites when users eventually find an alternative to throttling. On the contrary, the music industry is quite optimistic that the new law will lead to an increased rate of progress in the fight against music piracy. They believe this will make the creative industries flourish. Further music industry revenue could be reinvested in the creation of new digital content. Instead, I believe that instead of reinvesting in the creation of new digital content, this money will be used.