is it just me or does any one else see something wrong with this news story?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6058912.stm

With all this talk about closing down file sharing programs because they are being used to illegally share music, is that the best reason they can come up with???, I always thought the fact that child pornography is being shared on these programs would be a much better reason, but apparently that’s not so as all the news reports only mention about music , and I just can’t help thinking there is something seriously wrong with only closing down these programs because some millionaire can’t afford a second Ferrari this year and not because thousands of children are being exploited on these sites, and the only reason I can think why this is so is because the music industry isn’t losing money from the exploitation of children, the least they can do is to give a mention in these news stories about the exploitation of children on these sites as well to help bring more awareness to the problem.

Answer 1

Money is all that matters these days. Its the same with the fact that a murderer can get away with 4 years in prison, but a fraudster will nearly always get a full stretch. You're more likely to go to prison for not paying council tax than you are for stabbing a stranger in the street. Sign of the times I'm afraid.

Answer 2

I see your point that the file sharing programs are only highlighted for their involvement of music downloads.
There is a simple reason for this. It is the music industry that is losing money through them and money is what will motivate people when human issues won't. However the up side to this is that if the sites are moderated or closed, the effect is the same and the vile child pornographers will have lost their access to them just as the music thieves will have !!! Sometimes it is "never mind the means if you achieve the ends" !!The paedophiles must be brought to book in any way that works ! Awareness of the problem should be highlighted in any other way possible.This article was music specific.

Answer 3

The government and the media does not like an independent means of communication. They can't control or tax it. So what if kiddie porn is being shipped around? It can't be stopped. That's like trying to outlaw automobiles because child molesters drive 'em to playgrounds. Okay, make Chester the Molester walk. But he's still gonna be hanging around the playground. Howver, government has taken away my Toyota and I'm walking and carrying my groceries in a backpack. And to my mind, the biggest consumers of kiddie porn are the people so-called "studying" it. Supposedly legitimately. File sharing is gonna happen so long as email exists. And anytime the government wants to do something that ain't exactly on the up-an-up, suddenly it's "all about the chil'ren". Remember the Waco massacre and Janet Reno under the Clinton administration? 80-something innocent people were burned to death by the US government because supposedly children were being abused. They lied and people died. Same thing here. You're smart to look for an alternative explanation. The first one given by the government is usually not the real reason.

Answer 4

There is nothing wrong with this story; it just reflects the way our society works.

Child protection agencies have no clout; barons of the music industry do. If the file sharing technology was being used solely for child pornography, you can be assured no music mogul would have raised his/her voice. But since potential profits are being lost, that's a different issue.

What drives our society today is money, it's profit for huge corporations. When the profits can be enhanced, they will. Awareness means nothing.

Another example would be the R&D efforts in the healthcare industry. Billions are poured into sicknesses that hit over-indulgent people in the first world and are recurring, very little is done for simple curable diseases of the third world. The reason is that there is much money to be made from rich people who will never be cured as compared to poor people who can be.

Answer 5

I haven't used these music sharing sites but I would have thought that if you were looking for pornography (certainly the worst kind) you wouldn't find it on the most popular music sites. Surely it would be too obvious and the users could be traced too easily (as they can trace those who download music illegally). Don't the pornography sharers use there own secret sites?
I happen to think that downloading shared music files is unfair on the artists and I don't see why anyone should expect to get the music without paying or it.

Answer 6

very true, but then again celebrities are all that is in the news lately - how can some one living their life be news! who cares what new bag mrs beckham brought this week, what about all the children and families around the world that get a quick mention!

Answer 7

Either that or it could be easier to catch those sickos through P2P networks and they don't want their cover blown.

Remember what happened when we were tracking Bin Laden's cell phone? Some idiot reporter splashed it all over the front page so he tossed it in the trash and never bought another one.

Answer 8

yes you are right. i dont think its fair that these people are making tens or even hundreds of millions. music and movies should be made more accessable to the majority of the public, who cant pay $40 for an album. of course if someone makes a album, they should charge for it but not that much and people who share the music shouldn't be put in prison!. its stupid. oh. people. please support the action against child abuse. http://www.lightamillioncandles.com/

Answer 9

I totally agree with you! A very good point! It goes to show that the values of society are totally miss guided in this day in age!

Answer 10

Maybe they don't want to give any sickos ideas that they haven't already tried...