If a user has the music on their local system anyway, legally obtained or otherwise. What difference would it make uploading it to some online storage for their own use? Either way, they are never likely to pay for it, the labels don't really have anything to gain from chasing Google. If it was some music sharing service like Grooveshark then I could see the problem, but it's really not. It's an online 'private' music storage drive. You could do the same thing with Google Storage for Developers and some neat apps and nobody would ever know.

I'd say it's very different, the problem with all this is quality. You will end up getting the same submissions again and again with some colours changed, people ripping off other peoples designs left and right. Any designer desperate enough to spend time working for no guaranteed money isn't going to be too bothered about ethics or uniqueness. 3 months down the line the client realises they picked a direct clone of someone else's site. The foreign designer left completely unaccountable. That's value for money.

There never used to be any throttling on their other services either, but they changed that with no warning or change in pricing. There is nothing to stop them doing the same with their XXL. I left soon after that (also helped along by months of sketchy performance anyway). I'm lucky enough to be close to an exchange and get a constant 16Mb on ADSL2, completely unrestricted from Be. I've never looked back. Anyway, it's £51 a month for the 50Mb which is a ridiculous price for a broadband service. If I went Virgin and got the whole package, TV, Phone and 50Mb (which i'd want because having to plan your downloads around peak times is stupid). It would be well in excess of £80p/m. I currently pay about £30 for Sky, Be and phoneline.