The court action gives the ISPs 14 days to reveal the song-swappers' details, including names and addresses, so the BPI can start to take action against them.
Initially, the organisation will write to the 28, setting out how they have allegedly contravened copyright law and offer them the chance to settle out of court.
In approving the order, Justice Blackburne said: "On the face of it this appears to be a powerful case of copyright infringement."
A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association said he expects the 14-day deadline to supply the information to be met by the association's members. "I don't know anyone who is looking to challenge it... I don't know any ISP who are up in arms about this," he said.
He added, however, that the High Court order was necessary as ISPs can't give out users' details "willy nilly" and legal processes have to followed.
The BPI has also announced that it has taken action against download site Jetgroove.com. The site had posted 50,000 songs without the permission of the copyright holders but claimed that it would pay royalties on the songs.
Following a cease-and-desist order from the BPI and the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), the tracks have been removed but the two bodies will continue to monitor the site.
Figures from the IFPI reveal the amount of legal recorded music sold rose by 1.7 percent in the first half of this year.
Talkback
Whilst sawpping and sharing of copyrighted material is wrong, and should not be condoned, the industry brought this upon themselves.
For years the consumer demanded access to their favourite artists and tracks in digital format and the industry did not provide.
It's all about supply and demand, wherever their is a demand someone will come along a suplly it.
The industry is on warning that the sae thing will VERY soon be demanded of Video. The DVD Industry MUST put in place legal video download, streaming and sharing system before the underground comes along and fulfils the demand for them.
What's more important, £300 for the company or the data protection act?
Music downloads, a whole host of opinions on the subject.
I have several opinions: Some people will exploit whatever system they can. This is why many music pirates will steal music and make real fake CDs.
However, if you're the type of person that wants to dish out for music, you won't by a second rate dodgy copy.
So while I do not like mass theft (hey, the musicians have to get rewarded for good work) I do feel that the cost of music is -scandalous- and it serves the bastards right.
A motion picture costs a -shit load- more to make, and DVD's are churned out for around about the same price as CD's.
It doesn't have the same production cost at all, yet they expect the same kind of return. Now -that- is theft.
I will still buy good music as a good musician has worked damned hard to be where they are, and they deserve the recompense.
I don't care for further lining the pockets of businessmen who have overcharged the public for decades. If you were taking a reasonable cut instead of the ridiculous prices you're charging, more people would buy the 'product'.
This is great, it will help to drive the move towards fully anonymous P2P networks where file fragments are shuttled around in such a way that it's near impossible to tell who has which files. Then the RIAA, BPI etc. will be completely stuffed as they deserve.