Many professionals of the culture industry have openly defended these sites, calling them "very effective obsession incubators"2, contending that they give programs and artists, particularly the more obscure ones, greater exposure. A few artists have even occasionaly worked with them. Musicians like the Beastie Boys, Offspring, or Chuck B., film makers like New Line Cinema, the company behind Lord of the Ring, have expressed the conviction that files-sharing sites expand bands' fan bases, a belief facts seem to confirm since in music, for instance, last year's sales rose from $13.7 to 14.6 billion3. The issue is often couched in terms of obsolete and hypocritical corporate control against street wisdom, while the founders of the sites are portrayed as paradigms of intelligence, independence, and modernity opposed to middle-aged, stilted, ossified corporate executives. 

  Yet, the most striking phenomenon is not the artists' reaction but the way fans are starting to unite and are fostering what some describe as a consumer rebellion, "a consumer-led revolution"6. Though most of these sites were started just for fun, by youngsters merely eager to share their favourite sounds or images, they now symbolize a righteous cause, "a moral battle" (Nazar). Teenage fans have started a form of resistance and have in the process raised again the issue of free-speech which had lain dormant for the last decade, with sites like Webmaster War III leading the crusade against what they consider as "a corporate slap in the face" (NYT 20 Sept).

  Though it was not their original intention, they certainly have articulated the cause of a major concern: the monopolistic organisation and omnipotence of the entertainment industry. Indeed, most of the sounds and images available in the Western world are now controled by a handful of companies, and globalisation has reached new heights with the recently approved AOL-Time Warner merger. Concentration is taking place at two levels: first, between a purveyor of content, Time Warner, and an Internet access provider, AOL, and second, between three purveyors of content, since Time Warner may in the future acquire EMI and AOL has shares in BMG. AOL-Time Warner is now the largest media company in the world and has unparalleled bargaining power with both producers and consumers. 

Furthermore, others mergers soon should take place, with Vivendi about to acquire Seagram, the entertainment and liquor conglomerate, to create the world's second-largest media company8. The dangers of the consolidations currently taking place in the industry are real enough to justify the demand by the European and American Trade Commissions of strong guarantees before approving the deals.

  The interests at stake may explain the virulence of the industry's response to files-sharing sites, which are after all but a minor threat to their hegemony. At the heart of the issue is the all-pervading force of the nInternet. The Internet will soon be the hub around which our daily lives revolve, as it becomes connected to everything, from TV sets, stereos, cars, and telephones, to banks, shops, or restaurants. In the realm of culture and entertainment, the Internet will be the ultimate medium through which all the others are processed. In a matter of months now, movie theaters will no longer be sent film reels but digital data through the Internet; books, newspapers, radios, and TV programs will be broadcast or published via the Internet. People will have access to whatever they want, whenever they want it, wherever they are; as a result, the very notions of regular programming hours or official dates of release will become obsolete.