@ Titus

Yes, we know you struggle with many basic concepts Titus, but I'll try and help you understand anyway - his point was not how obtaining a music track can be done so illegaly, but how it was obtained from the artists illegaly. If it was obtained from the artists illegaly it implies it was an MP3 file owned by the artist that the person behind the site copied, and so the question is how did he get access to the artists personal MP3 collection?

Obviously he didn't, he probably obtained it from some random person's computer on the internet illegaly, not the artist. His point is that the police have made a loaded statement that implies that someone has directly taken something from the artist who does the actual work themself, when in reality his actions probably had no direct link to the artist themselves, only at best to the music publisher. It's loaded because people associate taking something from a hard working artist to be more of a sin than taking something from a faceless megacorp strongly involved in government corruption and who themselves have a long history of screwing the artist. The police officer has made his statement in such a way as to advance the agenda of such corporations, almost as if his statement was written by them directly and he was just parroting their words to try and get sympathy for their action.

The fact is, many people could probably give little fuck about the SERIOUS ORGANISED Crime Agency going after something that's actually not that serious, and most certainly not organised crime when they could be going after any number of serious, organised crime groups such as those responsible for trafficing thousands of people in and out of the UK each year.