Ethics of file sharing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:05, 10 June 2017

Redirect to:

File sharing#Public opinion of file sharing

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+#REDIRECT [[File sharing#Public opinion of file sharing]]
-{{Refimprove|date=December 2007}}
-{{Weasel|date=December 2007}}
-'''Ethics of file sharing''' is a subfield of [[ethics]] specifically relating to the ethical implications of [[file sharing]] over computer networks and the [[Internet]].
+{{Redirect category shell|1=
-File sharing occurs when people who are connected to the Internet use [[file-sharing program]]s to copy [[Computer file|files]] between each other. The ethical issues come mostly from the concern that practitioners of file sharing may infringe [[copyright]] laws. This can happen if the content of a file being shared is covered by such laws.
+{{R from merge}}
+}}
-==Types of file sharing==
-There are many options for sharing files on the internet. One of the most popular is [[peer-to-peer]] networks, or P2P networks. Some of the most popular networks are [[FastTrack (protocol)|FastTrack]], [[Gnutella]], and [[eDonkey network]]. With these networks, the user downloads a program to their computer that allows them to connect to the network. Then with this program the user can search the shared media on other users’ computers and download this media from them across the Internet. These networks allow the sharing of any type of digital content, including songs, DVD-quality movies, computer programs and video games.
-One of the most popular ways to get very large files like movies, computer applications, and video games is to use [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]], another type of peer-to-peer network. With BitTorrent large media files are broken down into smaller chunks, which are then transferred to the user (or peer) depending on the fastest possible connection to the missing piece; all of this is done while the user is uploading the pieces it already has to other users. While this type of file sharing is most popular and useful for large movies and games, it can also be used for music, but usually users download music by the album or artist instead of a couple of songs.
-==Legality of file sharing==
-{{main|File sharing and the law}}
-The debate over whether file sharing is legal or [[Morality|moral]] has sparked many lawsuits. In the [[United States]], some of these lawsuits have even reached the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in ''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.|MGM v. Grokster]]''<ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#MGM_Grokster MGM v. Grokster]</ref>.
-In 2004 there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing <ref>Delgado, Ray. [http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing]. ''Stanford Report'', March 17, 2004.</ref>. With that many people sharing files online it is virtually impossible for any government to track them down one by one and [[Prosecution|prosecute]] them. It is often the case that only file sharers uploading large quantities of illegal files will be prosecuted by authorities, if they can be located at all. However, there are so many different P2P networks that it would be very hard to stop them all. Besides, P2P networks are not the only way to share files. Fifty-eight percent of [[United States|Americans]] who follow the file sharing issue consider it acceptable in at least some circumstances [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml]. According to a [[CBS News]] poll, nearly 70% of 18 to 29 year olds think that file sharing is [[okay]] in some circumstances [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml].
-In 2001 the recording industries won a legal victory against [[Napster]] and in their fight against peer-to-peer networks. In 2005 the United States Supreme Court heard a case between MGM and Grokster, a P2P network. The Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held responsible if the intent of their program is clearly to infringe on copyright laws. There are more cases pending against other [[peer-to-peer]] networks, such as [[Kazaa]]. The legal downfall of P2P networks could put a major hole in internet file sharing, without them files can not cross to other people.
-File sharing is not necessarily illegal, even if the works being shared are covered by [[copyright]]. For example, some [[artist]]s may choose to support [[freeware]], [[shareware]], [[open source]], or [[anti-copyright]], and advocate the use of file sharing as a free promotional tool. Nearly all shareware, freeware, and open source software may be shared as much as the end user wishes, depending on the [[Software license agreement|End User Disclaimer]] for that specific piece of software. Other non-software related [[intellectual property]] may be shared legally in any way the end user desires. Content in the [[public domain]] can also freely be shared.
-Other artists believe that mass sharing of their creative products cheats them out of the monetary incentive to publish their work.  When people share files, one song that someone shares can be downloaded by another person and shared by them, then two copies can be shared and the process repeats to effectively create thousands of digital copies of a song from the one original file. The musician, director, or game designer must [[copyright]] his or her creative product in order to maintain the exclusive right to profit from his or her product.
-==File sharing advocates==
-{{further|[[Anti-copyright]]}}
-Some advocates claim that sharing helps the affected industry by allowing the consumer to sample the product before spending the money to purchase it. This in turn generates a new fan base as many discover artists that would be virtually impossible to discover otherwise, thus generating far more accurate album sales. This is often the case with movies and video games too, because downloaded games and movies are often not at full quality, or they lack some materials like DVD bonus features. Once the consumer is allowed to sample it, they might decide to buy the full legal version, where as they might never have bought it had they not been allowed to sample the media on their computer first.
-Some advocates also argue that file sharing doesn't hurt people financially. [http://www.thefactz.org/economics/p2p_summary.html Pollock] summarizes several studies on this.
-Another pro-file sharing argument is that movie, game, and other types of media are not seeing any drop in sales; but a rise.  P2P file sharing is only one of many factors attributed to the recent drop in CD sales. Pollock [http://www.thefactz.org/economics/p2p_summary.html explains] this in-depth.
-In the case of music, another argument is the alleged overpricing of [[CD]]s. Many consumers feel that CDs are far too expensive relative to decreasing costs of production. Consumers who only want one or two songs that have not been released as singles believe they should not have to pay the entire cost of a CD.
-Despite criticism of such an event occurring, recorders charging more for their albums seems very unlikely due to the record labels already trying to make maximum profit. If they were to up prices this would deter sales, ultimately hurting the record companies.
-Some file sharers argue that the companies whose [[intellectual property]] is being copied are large and generate high profits, and can thus afford the possible loss in profits.
-Other advocates of file sharing believe that file sharing does not affect artists' profits and only benefits the distribution company.
-Many advocates adamantly believe that access to music and films is, by its intrinsic cultural value, a right that should not be subject to distributor's oligopoly.
-A further argument in favour of file sharing is that not all of its users would buy all of the material that they download. In other words, one illegal download will not immediately translate to one lost sale, as many anti-piracy groups maintain. No study has yet been done to ascertain the proportion of users that would buy any of the material they download, if downloading were not available, and there is no currently available method to determine the number of sales that are represented by a given number of downloads.
-Significant cultural sources for arguments against copyright include the [[Free Software]] culture [http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html], [[anarchism]], the [[pirate]] and [[warez]] cultures, [[libertarian]] and [[civil libertarian]] groups [http://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing], and academic work in [[economics]] and [[ethics]].  From these various cultures come a rich variety of perspectives, ranging in extremes from libertarian views that are based on natural rights, and deny that "employment of artists" or other utilitarian arguments for copyright have meaning [http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm] [http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html], to scholars such as [[Rasmus Fleischer]] who argues that [[Web 2.0]] has changed society so significantly that personal behavior and business models simply make copyright law irrelevant (see [[Anti-copyright#Web_2.0|Anti-copyright]]).
-==File sharing opponents==
-{{further|[[Copyright infringement]]}}
-{{Expand-section|date=November 2008}}
-It could be argued that the author of a creative work has certain natural rights to that work. They should be able to do with it as they see fit, as it is an integral part of their identity.
-The strong version of this argument would suggest that copyright infringement is thus a fundamental assault upon the author's identity and autonomy. A weaker version of this argument would suggest that the author has a natural property right which should be protected from certain activities, even if they do not cause any financial loss.
-The weaker version of the argument can best be understood through the use of somewhat misleading analogies. The first analogy concerns a car. The second analogy concerns a bath. The third analogy concerns a donut shop.
-Common threads run through the analogies. In every analogy, no financial loss has been caused to the aggrieved party. In 1 and 2, no tangible loss at all has been caused. In every analogy, it can be said that someone has acted immorally. This can be justified by reasoning that these are situations where we feel that the autonomy of a party should be protected, and, in these analogies it is violated. In the car analogy, the autonomy of the driver has been violated because, on the off chance that he had woken up in the middle of the night, he would have not been able to use the car (however in the case of file sharing, the copyright holder is at no point similarly deprived of their media). In the bath analogy, whilst he has not suffered any tangible harm, the bath taker is similarly aggrieved (however again, in the case of file sharing, the copyright holder has had no unpleasant restrictions placed by the file sharer). In the donut analogy, the owner has not only been deprived of the ability to sell donuts, but the antagonist has also become a competitor, although this analogy would be better suited to traditional physical piracy and not digital file sharing.  In all the analogies, one of the parties has limited the victim's choice. They have made the victim's decision for them.
-Similarly, in the case of copyright infringement, one could argue that it is immaterial that a copyright holder is likely to suffer no financial loss through infringement. The wrong alleged is not the causing of financial loss. It is threefold. It is:
-i. The loss of a chance to make a gain.
-ii. The loss of a choice as to how their work is dealt with.
-iii. The loss of the capacity to make a decision as to how to run their business, even if that decision is a poor one.
-A proponent of copyright infringement may, in counterargument, suggest that considerations of respect, autonomy, and natural rights are irrelevant, because often it will not be the author of a work who suffers losses from copyright infringement - it is their publisher. This observation could be considered irrelevant. Firstly, opponents consider that the author's natural right cannot merely extend only to his personal use of the work. It is his right to do with the work what he sees fit. Secondly, the autonomy of a publisher is no less worth protecting. Opponents believe rights should prima facie be respected even when they have been purchased for value.
-Opponents further argue that copyright creates an incentive for the creation of works. As such, it is important that it be respected, so that creative people are encouraged to create works which benefit society. By infringing copyright, the infringer reduces this incentive, and thus harms society. Opponents argue that the selling of rights to a publishing intermediary is immaterial. Additionally, they argue that financial losses may not occur immediately, but market value is still reduced by infringement. Proponents' counterargument is that market value should be what is willingly paid and not that which is inflated by copyright.
-==See also==
-* [[Disk sharing]]
-* [[File sharing timeline]]
-* [[File-sharing program]]
-* [[Open Music Model]]
-* [[File sharing in Canada]]
-* [[Warez]]
-==Notes==
-<references/>
-==References==
-[http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html The Internet Debacle: An Alternative View, by Janis Ian]
-[[Category:File sharing]]