Jump to content

File sharing: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
...deeper
m update: Changed link from Morpheus (software) to Morpheus (file-sharing software) using Move+
 
(808 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information}}
:''This article is about file sharing over the Internet. For printer and file sharing as local area network service, see [[shared disk access]].''
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2017}}
{{Filesharing}}
{{fsb}}
'''File sharing''' is the practice of distributing or providing access to [[digital media]], such as computer programs, [[multimedia]] (audio, images and video), documents or [[E-book|electronic books]]. Common methods of [[Computer data storage|storage]], [[Data transmission|transmission]] and dispersion include [[removable media]], centralized servers on [[computer network]]s, Internet-based [[hyperlink]]ed documents, and the use of distributed [[peer-to-peer]] networking.


File sharing technologies, such as [[BitTorrent]], are integral to modern [[Digital piracy|media piracy]], as well as the sharing of scientific data and other free content.
'''File sharing''' is the practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information, such as computer programs, multi-media (audio, video), documents, or electronic books. It may be implemented through a variety of storage, transmission, and distribution models and common methods of file sharing incorporate manual sharing using [[removable media]], centralized computer file server installations on [[computer network]]s, [[World Wide Web]]-based [[hyperlink]]ed documents, and the use of distributed [[peer-to-peer]] (P2P) networking.

File sharing is not in and of itself illegal. However, the increasing popularity of the [[mp3]] music format in the late 1990s led to the release and growth of [[Napster]] and other software that aided the sharing of electronic files. This in practice led to a huge growth in illegal file sharing: the sharing of copyright protected files without authorization.

Although the original Napster service was shut down by court order, it paved the way for decentralized and semi-decentralised peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as [[Gnutella]], [[Gnutella2]], [[eDonkey2000]], the [[FastTrack|Kazaa]] network, and [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]].

Starting in the early 2000s, some file sharing networks and services — including the original incarnations of MP3.com, Audiogalaxy, Napster, and Morpheus — were accused of facilitating illegal file sharing and were shut down due to litigation by groups such as the [[Recording Industry Association of America|RIAA]] and [[Motion Picture Association of America|MPAA]]. During the same period, the fight against illegal sharing also expanded into lawsuits against individual users of file sharing software.

The economic impact of illegal file sharing on media industries is disputed. Some studies conclude that unauthorized downloading of movies, music and software is unequivocally damaging the economy, while other studies suggest file sharing is not the primary cause of declines in sales. Illegal file sharing remains widespread, with mixed public opinion about the morality of the practice.

==Types of file sharing==
===Peer to peer networks===
Some of the most popular options for file sharing on the Internet are [[peer-to-peer]] networks, such as [[Gnutella]], [[Gnutella2]], [[iMesh]] and [[eDonkey network]].

Users can use software that connects in to a peer-to-peer network to search for shared files on the computers of other users (i.e. peers) connected to the network. Files of interest can then be downloaded directly from other users on the network. Typically, large files are broken down into smaller chunks, which may be obtained from multiple peers and then reassembled by the downloader. This is done while the peer is simultaneously uploading the chunks it already has to other peers.

===File hosting services===

[[File hosting service]]s are a simple alternative to peer-to-peer software. These are sometimes used together with Internet collaboration tools such as email, forums, blogs, or any other medium in which links to direct downloads from file hosting services can be embedded. These sites typically host files so that others can download them.


==History==
==History==
{{Main|File sharing timeline}}
{{For timeline}}
<!-- pre-1999 -->Files were first exchanged on [[removable media]]. Computers were able to access remote files using filesystem mounting, [[bulletin board systems]] (1978), [[Usenet]] (1980), and [[FTP]] servers (1985). [[Internet Relay Chat]] (1988) and [[Hotline Communications|Hotline]] (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through [[online chat|chat]] and to exchange files. The [[mp3]] encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and which substantially reduced the size of audio files, grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, [[MP3.com]] and [[Audiogalaxy]] were established, the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] was unanimously passed, and the first mp3 player devices were launched. MP3.com offered music by unsigned artists, and grew to serve 4 million audio downloads daily{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}.
<!-- pre-1999 -->Files were first exchanged on [[removable media]]. Computers were able to access remote files using [[filesystem]] mounting, [[bulletin board system]]s (1978), [[Usenet]] (1979), and [[File Transfer Protocol|FTP]] servers (1970's). [[Internet Relay Chat]] (1988) and [[Hotline Communications|Hotline]] (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through [[online chat|chat]] and to exchange files. The [[mp3]] encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and substantially reduced the size of [[Audio file format|audio files]], grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, [[MP3.com]] and [[Audiogalaxy]] were established, the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] was unanimously passed, and the first [[Portable media player|mp3 player]] devices were launched.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Adner|first=Ron|date=2012-03-05|title=From Walkman to iPod: What Music Tech Teaches Us About Innovation|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/from-walkman-to-ipod-what-music-tech-teaches-us-about-innovation/253158/|access-date=2021-10-12|website=The Atlantic|language=en|archive-date=September 21, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921204412/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/from-walkman-to-ipod-what-music-tech-teaches-us-about-innovation/253158/|url-status=live}}</ref>


In June 1999, [[Napster]] was released as an unstructured centralized peer-to-peer system,<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KeIENcC2BPwC&q=napster+first&pg=PA532 |title=Reliable distributed systems: technologies, Web services, and applications - Kenneth P. Birman - Google Books |via=[[Google Books]] |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170905151657/https://books.google.com/books?id=KeIENcC2BPwC&pg=PA532&lpg=PA532&dq=napster+first#PPA532,M1 |archive-date=September 5, 2017 |df=mdy-all |isbn=9780387215099 |last1=Elser |first1=Amy |date=March 25, 2005 |publisher=Springer }}</ref> requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In December 1999, Napster was sued by several recording companies and lost in ''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]''.<ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title=RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion | date=December 9, 1999 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130601112815/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html | archive-date=June 1, 2013 | df=mdy-all }}</ref> In the case of Napster, it has been ruled that an online service provider could not use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]] if they had control of the network with a server.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php |title=EFF: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law |publisher=W2.eff.org |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120115034129/http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php |archive-date=January 15, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
[[Usenet]] was created in 1979.<ref>''From Usenet to CoWebs: interacting with social information spaces'', Christopher Lueg, Danyel Fisher, Springer (2003), ISBN 1852335327, ISBN 9781852335328</ref> It is a network that was initially based on the [[UUCP]] protocol for dial-up connections and has, since being transported over the Internet, used a specialized client-server protocol, the [[Network News Transfer Protocol]] (NNTP). Its main purpose was the exchange of text based messages, but through attachments allowed users to encode files and distribute them to participating subscribers of [[Usenet newsgroup]]s. Usenet remains one of the largest carriers of file sharing and Internet traffic.<ref>RFC 3877, ''Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)'', C. Feather, The Internet Society (October 2006)</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=9834 |first=Alex |last=Moskalyuk |title=European Internet traffic is 19% Usenet, 13% P2P |date=2006-01-01}}</ref> Legal challenges to P2P systems have spurred a resurgence of Usenet.<ref>http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/online/e-business/news/index.cfm?newsid=13443</ref> Usenet itself has also been the target of legal challenges pertaining to its use in file sharing.<ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/10/riaa-shifts-legal-battle-to-a-new-front-sues-usenet-access-provider.ars</ref>


[[Gnutella]], [[eDonkey2000]], and [[Freenet]] were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. [[Gnutella]], released in March, was the first decentralized file-sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no [[Single point of failure|central point of failure]]. In July, [[Freenet]] was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the [[eDonkey2000]] client and server software was released.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}
<!-- non-internet file sharing -->Between 1979 and the mid 1990s, file sharing was done through [[bulletin board systems]] and Usenet. The term [[shareware]] and its distribution model became more popular in part due to the BBS networks and systems.<ref>http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4112/20_years_of_evolution_scott_.php?page=4</ref> Putting shareware on BBS was a way for some developers to distribute their software and generate income.<ref>{{cite book|last=Stang|first=David J. |title=Network security|year=1992|publisher=DIANE Publishing|isbn=0941375323|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KE5EB8QuOh4C&pg=PA235&dq=bbs+shareware&hl=en&ei=fEZhTO_cBoP58Aailvi6Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bbs%20shareware&f=false}}</ref> Games such as [[Doom]] became popular as a result of this distribution model.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mäyrä|first=Frans |title=An introduction to games studies: games in culture|year=2008|publisher=SAGE|isbn=1412934451}}</ref> Bulletin boards eventually became obsolete as the Internet grew in popularity.<ref>{{cite book|last=Wang|first=Wally|title=Steal this file sharing book|year=2004|publisher=No Starch Press|isbn=159327050X|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FGfMS5kymmcC&pg=PT23&dq=bbs+%22file+sharing%22&hl=en&ei=_0VhTKjXIcKC8gbDwL2CCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bbs%20%22file%20sharing%22&f=false}}</ref>


In March 2001, [[Kazaa]] was released. Its [[FastTrack]] network was distributed, though, unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as [[Morpheus (file-sharing software)|Morpheus]] off of the FastTrack network.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}} In October 2001, the [[MPAA]] and the [[RIAA]] filed a lawsuit against the developers of Kazaa, Morpheus and [[Grokster]]<ref>{{cite magazine | last=Woody | first=Todd | title=The Race to Kill Kazaa | date=February 1, 2003 | magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | url=https://www.wired.com/2003/02/kazaa/}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title=RIAA and MPAA sue Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaa | date=October 3, 2001 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/sue_morpheus.html | access-date=October 16, 2019 | archive-date=July 31, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731160654/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/sue_morpheus.html | url-status=live }}</ref> that would lead to the US Supreme Court's ''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.]]'' decision in 2005.
<!-- napster, my.mp3.com, litigation -->In June 1999, [[Napster]] was released as a centralized unstructured peer-to-peer system,<ref>Kenneth P. Birman (2005). [http://books.google.ca/books?id=KeIENcC2BPwC&pg=PA532&lpg=PA532&dq=napster+first&source=bl&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA532,M1 ''Reliable distributed systems''], p.532. ISBN 0387215093.</ref> requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In the case of Napster,<ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title= RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion | date=December 9, 1999 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html}}</ref> an online service provider could not use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]] if they had control of the network with a server. Many P2P products will, by their very nature, flunk this requirement, just as Napster did.<ref>Fred von Lohmann. v. 5.0, January 2006. [http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php "IAAL*: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law"], ''Electronic Frontier Foundation''.</ref> Napster provided a service where they indexed and stored file information that users of Napster made available on their computers for others to download, and the files were transferred directly between the host and client users after authorization by Napster. Shortly after the [[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]] loss in court Napster blocked all copyright content from being downloaded.


Shortly after its loss in court, Napster was shut down to comply with a court order. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its growth.<ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title=Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet | date=July 20, 2001 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/topclones.html | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328161917/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/topclones.html | archive-date=March 28, 2012 | df=mdy-all }}</ref> The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the [[LimeWire]] client and [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]] protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file-sharing program despite bundled [[malware]] and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue, and the [[Recording Industry Association of America]] (RIAA) filed a lawsuit that effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.
<!-- gnutella & edonkey, 2000 -->[[Gnutella]], [[eDonkey2000]], and [[Freenet]] were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. [[Gnutella]], released in March, was the first decentralized file sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no central point of failure. In July, [[Freenet]] was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the [[eDonkey2000]] client and server software was released.


[[File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg|thumb|Demonstrators protesting [[The Pirate Bay raid]] in 2006]]
<!-- kazaa, napster loses, 2001 -->In 2001, [[Kazaa]] and [[Poisoned]] for the Mac was released. Its [[FastTrack]] network was distributed, though unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as [[Morpheus (computer program)|Morpheus]] off of the FastTrack network.


From 2002 through 2003, a number of [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]] services were established, including [[Suprnova.org]], [[isoHunt]], [[TorrentSpy]], and [[The Pirate Bay]]. In September 2003, the [[RIAA]] began filing lawsuits against users of P2P file sharing networks such as Kazaa.<ref>{{cite magazine | last=Dean | first=Katie | title=RIAA Legal Landslide Begins | date=September 8, 2003 | magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | url=https://www.wired.com/2003/09/riaa-legal-landslide-begins/ | access-date=November 1, 2019 | archive-date=March 8, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308181623/https://www.wired.com/2003/09/riaa-legal-landslide-begins/ | url-status=live }}</ref> As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). Also in 2003, the [[MPAA]] started to take action against BitTorrent sites, leading to the shutdown of Torrentse and Sharelive in July 2003.<ref>{{cite news | last=Röttgers | first=Janko | title=Bittorrent-Webseiten unter Druck | trans-title=Bittorrent websites under pressure | date=July 26, 2003 | publisher=heise online | url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bittorrent-Webseiten-unter-Druck-82795.html | language=de | access-date=October 16, 2019 | archive-date=October 16, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191016144549/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bittorrent-Webseiten-unter-Druck-82795.html | url-status=live }}</ref> With the shutdown of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the [[Razorback2]] eDonkey server and temporarily took down [[The Pirate Bay]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Motion Picture Association |title=BELGIAN & SWISS AUTHORITIES BREAK RAZORBACK2: World's Largest P2P Facilitator Put Out of Illegal Business |url=http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_razer.pdf |website=Motion Picture Association |access-date=5 January 2024 |archive-date=April 15, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060415024031/http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_razer.pdf |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref>
In July 2001, Napster lost in court and was shut down. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its exponential growth.<ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title= Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet | date=July 20, 2001 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/topclones.html}}</ref> The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the [[LimeWire]] client and [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]] protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file sharing program despite bundled [[malware]] and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue and an RIAA lawsuit effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.


"The File Sharing Act was launched by Chairman Towns in 2009, this act prohibited the use of applications that allowed individuals to share federal information amongst one another. On the other hand, only specific file sharing applications were made available to federal computers" (the United States.Congress.House). In 2009, the [[Pirate Bay trial]] ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker. The decision was appealed, leading to a second guilty verdict in November 2010. In October 2010, Limewire was forced to shut down following a court order in ''[[Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC]]'' but the Gnutella network remains active through open source clients like [[FrostWire]] and [[gtk-gnutella]]. Furthermore, multi-protocol file-sharing software such as [[MLDonkey]] and [[Shareaza]] adapted to support all the major file-sharing protocols, so users no longer had to install and configure multiple file-sharing programs.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}
[[File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg|thumb|Demonstrators protesting [[The Pirate Bay raid]], [[2006]].]]
From 2002 through 2003, a number of popular BitTorrent services were established, including [[Suprnova.org]], [[isoHunt]], [[TorrentSpy]], and [[The Pirate Bay]]. In 2002, the RIAA was filing lawsuits against Kazaa users. As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). With the shut down of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the [[Razorback2]] eDonkey server and temporarily took down [[The Pirate Bay]]. Pro-piracy demonstrations took place in Sweden in response to [[the Pirate Bay raid]]. In 2009, the [[Pirate Bay trial]] ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker.


On January 19, 2012, the [[United States Department of Justice]] shut down the popular domain of [[Megaupload]] (established 2005). The file sharing site has claimed to have over 50,000,000 people a day.<ref name="megaupload_wp">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/department-of-justice-site-hacked-after-megaupload-shutdown-anonymous-claims-credit/2012/01/20/gIQAl5MNEQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop |title=Department of Justice site hacked after Megaupload shutdown, Anonymous claims credit. Washington Post |work=Washingtonpost.com |access-date=January 30, 2012 |first=Steven |last=Mufson |date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120123165721/http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/department-of-justice-site-hacked-after-megaupload-shutdown-anonymous-claims-credit/2012/01/20/gIQAl5MNEQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop |archive-date=January 23, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> [[Kim Dotcom]] (formerly Kim Schmitz) was arrested with three associates in New Zealand on January 20, 2012 and is awaiting extradition.<ref>{{cite news |last=Schneider |first=Joe |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/megaupload-s-dotcom-in-custody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request.html |title=Megaupload's Dotcom in Custody as New Zealand Awaits Extradition Request, Bloomberg |publisher=Bloomberg.com |date=January 24, 2012 |access-date=January 30, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127024809/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/megaupload-s-dotcom-in-custody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request.html |archive-date=January 27, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553 | title=Dotcom in custody ahead of bail decision | work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] | date=23 January 2012 | access-date=March 13, 2018 | author=Leask, Anna | archive-date=March 13, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180313034427/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553 | url-status=live }}</ref> The case involving the downfall of the world's largest and most popular file sharing site was not well received, with hacker group [[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]] bringing down several sites associated with the take-down.<ref name="megaupload_wp" /> In the following days, other file sharing sites began to cease services; [[FileSonic]] blocked public downloads on January 22,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Musil |first1=Steven |title=FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/filesonic-disables-file-sharing-in-wake-of-megaupload-arrests/ |website=CNET |access-date=5 January 2024}}</ref> with [[FileServe|Fileserve]] following suit on January 23.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Lanxon |first1=Nate |title=Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests |url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/filesonic-file-sharing-offline |magazine=Wired |publisher=Condé Nast Britain |access-date=5 January 2024}}</ref>
Networks such as BitTorrent via [[uTorrent]] and [[Vuze|Azureus]] and the trackers & indexing sites, Gnutella via [[Limewire]] and the eDonkey network via [[eMule]]<ref>[http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-statistics-080426/ Filesharing Report Shows Explosive Growth for uTorrent]</ref><ref>[http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/8002/p2p.html Top P2P Applications: 1.6 Million PCs Rank Them]</ref><ref>[http://torrentfreak.com/limewire-gets-more-serious-about-bittorrent-090704/ Limewire Gets More Serious About BitTorrent]</ref> managed to survive this turbulent time. Furthermore, multi-protocol file sharing software such as [[MLDonkey]] and [[Shareaza]] adapted in order to support all the major file sharing protocols, so users no longer had to install and configure multiple file sharing programs.


In 2021 a [[European Citizens' Initiative]] "Freedom to Share" started collecting signatures in order to get the [[European Commission]] to discuss (and eventually make rules) on this subject, which is controversial.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=2021-02-22|title="Freedom to Share" Launches EU Citizens' Initiative to Legalize File-Sharing|newspaper=TorrentFreak|url=https://torrentfreak.com/freedom-to-share-launches-eu-citizens-initiative-to-legalize-filesharing-201217/|author=Ernesto Van der Sar|date=2020-12-17|archive-date=February 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218090937/https://torrentfreak.com/freedom-to-share-launches-eu-citizens-initiative-to-legalize-filesharing-201217/|url-status=live}}</ref>
==Copyright and controversy==
{{Main|Copyrighted content on file sharing networks}}
A significant number of people share files in a way that [[copyright infringement|infringes]] on the legal rights of [[copyright]] holders. Copyright holders have challenged the legality of file sharing networks which has led to litigation by industry bodies against certain private individual file sharers.


=== Techniques used for video sharing ===
The legal issues surrounding file sharing have been the subject of debate and conferences.<ref>10/17/2002. [http://westlegaledcenter.com/program_guide/course_detail.jsp?page=prgmgd&classroomCourseId=0&videoCourseId=6605&audioCourseId=6606&textCourseId=0&intCourseId=0 "Will File-Sharing Kill the Copyright Industries?"], ''Beverly Hills Bar Association'' & ''West LegalEdcenter''.</ref>
From the early 2000s until the mid 2010s, online video streaming was usually based on the [[Adobe Flash Player]]. After more and more vulnerabilities in Adobe's flash became known, [[YouTube]] switched to HTML5 based video playback in January 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default|title=YouTube drops Flash for HTML5 video as default|last=McCormick|first=Rich|date=2015-01-27|website=The Verge|language=en|access-date=2020-02-05|archive-date=April 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402075002/https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default|url-status=live}}</ref>


== Types ==
[[Digital rights management]] intended to curb copyright infringement by preventing file sharing but proved unpopular with consumers due to the restrictive usage policies imposed.


=== Peer-to-peer file sharing ===
===Economic impact===
[[Peer-to-peer file sharing]] is based on the [[peer-to-peer]] (P2P) application architecture. [[Shared resource|Shared files]] on the computers of other [[User (computing)|users]] are indexed on directory servers. P2P technology was used by popular services like [[Napster]] and [[LimeWire]]. The most popular protocol for P2P sharing is [[BitTorrent]].


=== File sync and sharing services ===
The economic effect of file sharing on music revenue has been controversial and difficult to determine. Music sales dropped globally from approximately $38 billion in 1999 to $32 billion in 2003, and an increasing number of studies found that file sharing had a negative impact on record sales.<ref>Alejandro Zentner, [http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1452&amp;context=bejeap "File Sharing and International Sales of Copyrighted Music: An Empirical Analysis with a Panel of Countries"], ''The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy'', Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2005)</ref><ref>Stan J. Liebowitz, "File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?"; Rafael Rob and Joel Waldfogel, "Piracy on the High C's: Music Downloading, Sales Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students"; Alejandro Zentner, "Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases", [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jle/2006/49/1 ''The Journal of Law and Economics'', Vol. 49, No. 1 (April 2006)]</ref><ref>Stan J. Liebowitz in a series of papers (2005, 2006) <!--"File sharing: creative destruction or just plain destruction?" Liebowitz, Stan J. ''Journal of Law and Economics'' (0022-2186) 1 Apr 2006. Vol.49, Iss.1; p.1-28--><!--"Copyright reconsidered". Liebowitz, Stan J. ''Issues in Science and Technology'' (0748-5492) 22 Mar 2005. Vol.21, Iss.3; p.92(4)--><!--"Seventeen famous economists weigh in on copyright: the role of theory, empirics, and network effects". Liebowitz, Stan J. ''Harvard Journal of Law & Technology'' (0897-3393) 22 Mar 2005. Vol.18, Iss.2; p.435-457--></ref> It has proven difficult to untangle the cause and effect relationships among a number of different trends, including an increase in legal online purchases of music; illegal file-sharing; drops in the prices of CDs; and the extinction of many independent music stores with a concommitant shift to sales by big-box retailers.<ref name="autogenerated2">Smith, Ethan. March 21, 2007. [http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117444575607043728-oEugjUqEtTo1hWJawejgR3LjRAw_20080320.html?mod=rss_free "Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply: Rise in Downloading Fails to Boost Industry; A Retailing Shakeout"], ''Wallstreet Journal Website''</ref> According to David Glenn, writing in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'', "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file sharing hurts sales", though not always to the precise degree "the record industry would like the public to believe."<ref name="HigherEdu">Glenn, David. Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies, Chronicle.com, July 17, 2008.</ref>
[[File:Shareaza 2.5.2.0 Screenshot English.jpg|thumb|Screenshot of an open-source file-sharing software [[Shareaza]]]]
[[Cloud computing|Cloud-based]] [[file synchronization|file syncing and sharing]] services implement automated file transfers by updating files from a dedicated sharing directory on each user's networked devices. Files placed in this folder also are typically accessible through a website and mobile app and can be easily shared with other users for viewing or collaboration. Such services have become popular via consumer-oriented [[file hosting service]]s such as [[Dropbox (service)|Dropbox]] and [[Google Drive]]. With the rising need of sharing big files online easily, new [[open access]] sharing platforms have appeared, adding even more services to their core business (cloud storage, multi-device synchronization, online collaboration), such as [[ShareFile]], [[Tresorit]], [[WeTransfer]], or [[Hightail]].


[[rsync]] is a more traditional program released in 1996 which synchronizes files on a direct machine-to-machine basis.
A study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf in 2004, analyzing logs of [[download]]s on file sharing networks, found that file sharing had no negative effect on CD sales, and would possibly slightly improve the sales of top albums.<ref>Felix Olberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, [http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis"] ''Journal of Political Economy'', 2007, 115(1):1-42; Retrieved on 2008-10-22 from [http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/ Koleman Strumpf's website] <!-- Bot generated title --> February 2007,</ref> This work was challenged by Professor Stan Liebowitz, who accused Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf of making multiple assumptions about the music industry "that are just not correct."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ssrn.com/abstract=1014399|format=PDF|title=How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?|last=Liebowitz|first=Stan J.|accessdate=2010-07-26}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://musicbusinessresearch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/paper-stan-j-liebowitz1.pdf|format=PDF|title=The Key Instrument in the Oberholzer-Gee/Strumpf File-Sharing Paper is Defective|last=Liebowitz|first=Stan J.|accessdate=2008-06-13}}</ref> In June 2010, ''Billboard'' reported that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had "changed their minds", now finding "no more than 20% of the recent decline in sales is due to sharing".<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i82a006de3290b1a63323f3e4ee910ca9 Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact ] ''Billboard''. June 22, 2010.</ref>


[[Data synchronization]] in general can use other approaches to share files, such as [[distributed filesystem|distributed file system]]s, [[version control]], or [[Web mirror|mirrors]].
The [[MPAA]] reported that American studios lost $2.3 billion to Internet piracy in 2005, representing approximately one third of the total cost of film piracy in the United States.<ref>{{cite web|format=PDF|url=http://www.MPAA.org/press_releases/2006_05_31.pdf|title=SWEDISH AUTHORITIES SINK PIRATE BAY: Huge Worldwide Supplier of Illegal Movies Told No Safe Harbors for Facilitators of Piracy!|date=2006-05-31|publisher=[[MPAA]]}}</ref> The MPAA's estimate was doubted by commentators since it was based on the assumption that one download was equivalent to one lost sale, and downloaders might not purchase the movie if illegal downloading was not an option.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?ex=1258693200&en=a210357f5dcc8523&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt |title=Does a Free Download Equal a Lost Sale? |first=Daniel |last=Gross |date=2004-11-21 |accessdate=2007-07-16 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf|first=Felix|last=Oberholzer|coauthors=Strumpf, Koleman|title=The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis|year=2004|month=March|publisher=[[UNC Chapel Hill]]}}</ref><ref>
{{cite news|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9C02E2D91139F936A35757C0A9629C8B63|title=A Heretical View of File Sharing|first=John|last=Schwartz|date=2004-04-05|accessdate=2007-07-16|publisher=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Due to the private nature of the study, the figures could not be publicly checked for methodology or validity,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060505-6761.html|publisher=[[Ars Technica]]|first=Ken|last=Fisher|date=2006-05-05|accessdate=2007-07-15|title=The problem with MPAA's shocking piracy numbers}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web|url=http://torrentfreak.com/movie-piracy-cost-61-billion/|title=Movie Piracy Cost 6.1 Billion|publisher=[[Torrent Freak]]|date=2006-05-03|accessdate=2007-07-16}}</ref><ref>
{{cite news|url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6068198.html|title=Hollywood study examines costs of film piracy|publisher=[[ZDNet]] ([[Reuters]])|date=2006-05-03|accessdate=2007-07-16}}</ref> and on January 22, 2008, as the MPAA was lobbying for a bill which would compel universities to crack down on piracy, it was admitted that MPAA figures on piracy in colleges had been inflated by up to 300%.<ref>
{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/01/oops-mpaa-admits-college-piracy-numbers-grossly-inflated.ars|title=MPAA admits college piracy numbers grossly inflated|publisher=[[Ars Technica]]|date=2008-01-22|first=Nate|last=Anderson}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/01/filtering-could-come-to-isps-colleges-in-2008.ars|title=2008 shaping up to be "Year of Filters" at colleges, ISPs|publisher=[[Ars Technica]]|date=2008-01-15|first=Nate|last=Anderson}}</ref>


== Academic file sharing ==
A 2010 study, commissioned by the [[International Chamber of Commerce]] and conducted by independent Paris-based economics firm TERA, estimated that unlawful downloading of music, film and software cost Europe's creative industries several billion in revenue each year.<ref>Mundell, Ian. [http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016618.html?categoryId=1338&cs=1 Piracy in Europe costs $13.7 billion], ''Variety''. March 18, 2010.</ref> Furthermore, the TERA study entitled “Building a Digital Economy: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the EU's Creative Industries” predicted losses due to piracy reaching as much as 1.2 million jobs and €240 billion in retail revenue by 2015 if the trend continued. Researchers applied a substitution rate of ten percent to the volume of copyright infringements per year. This rate corresponded to the number of units potentially traded if unlawful file sharing were eliminated and did not occur.<ref>Geoffron, Patrice. [http://www.iccwbo.org/bascap/id35360/index.html Building a Digital Economy], iccwbo.org, March 17, 2010.</ref> Piracy rates of one-quarter or more for popular [[software]] and [[operating system]]s have been common, even in countries and regions with strong intellectual property enforcement, such as the [[US]] or the [[EU]].<ref>Moisés Naím (2007). ''Illicit: How smugglers, traffickers and copycats are hijacking the global economy'', p.15. Arrow Books, London. ISBN 1400078849.</ref>
In addition to file sharing for the purposes of entertainment, academic file sharing has become a topic of increasing concern,<ref name=":0">{{cite book| title=Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind| author=Rogerson, A.M.| publisher=Semantic Scholar| date=2014| s2cid=106581372}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite book| title=Handbook of Academic Integrity| author1=Rogerson, A.M.| author2=Basanta, G.| chapter=Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Academic Integrity in the Internet Age| chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55| publisher=Springer Nature| pages=273–285| date=5 February 2016| access-date=13 December 2023| doi=10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55| isbn=978-981-287-098-8}}</ref><ref name=AID_1>{{cite journal| title=Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary| author=Eaton, S.E.| url=https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/3817c241-3d4b-433e-b424-e955e81c0b48| journal=International Studies in Educational Administration| publisher=Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management| volume=48| issue=1| pages=80–85| date=12 July 2020| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref> as it is deemed to be a violation of [[academic integrity]] at many schools.<ref name=":0"/><ref name=":1"/><ref name=ASI_1>{{cite web| title=Arts & Sciences investigates Physics 192 academic integrity breach| author=Butler, J.| url=https://www.studlife.com/news/2020/04/15/arts-sciences-investigates-physics-192-academic-integrity-breach| publisher=Washington University Student Media, Inc.| date=15 April 2020| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref> Academic file sharing by companies such as [[Chegg]] and [[Course Hero]] has become a point of particular controversy in recent years.<ref name=LT_1>{{cite web| title=Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?| author=McKenzie, L.| url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/14/professors-warned-about-popular-learning-tool-used-students-cheat| publisher=Inside Higher Ed| date=13 May 2018| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref> This has led some institutions to provide explicit guidance to students and faculty regarding academic integrity expectations relating to academic file sharing.<ref name=NSS_1>{{cite web| title=Information for Faculty: Note-sharing sites| url=https://sheridancollege.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=34999338| publisher=Sheridan College| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref><ref name=CSG_1>{{cite web| title=Copyright for Students| url=https://sheridancollege.libguides.com/copyright_students/home| publisher=Sheridan College| date=30 July 2023| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref>


==Public opinion of file sharing==
Small independent labels have pointed out that the negative economic impact of illegal file sharing on them and their grass roots artists cannot be denied as it is difficult to compete with unauthorized free distribution of their copyrighted music.<ref>[http://www.lionmusic.com/murderofmusic.html Lionmusic] Retrieved 17 Apr 2010</ref>
In 2004, there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html |title=Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing|last = Delgado |first = Ray |work=Stanford Report |publisher=[[Stanford University]] |date=March 17, 2004 |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625030926/http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html |archive-date=June 25, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> According to a [[CBS News]] poll in 2009, 58% of [[United States|Americans]] who follow the file-sharing issue, considered it acceptable "if a person owns the music CD and shares it with a limited number of friends and acquaintances"; with 18- to 29-year-olds, this percentage reached as much as 70%.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-young-say-file-sharing-ok/ |title=Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK |work=[[CBS News]] |date=February 11, 2009 |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111130162846/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml |archive-date=November 30, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>


In his survey of file-sharing culture, Caraway (2012) noted that 74.4% of participants believed musicians should accept file sharing as a means for promotion and distribution.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1216/720|title = Survey of File-Sharing Culture|date = 2012|access-date = November 25, 2015|website = [[International Journal of Communication]]|publisher = [[USC Annenberg Press]], [[Creative Commons license]] (by-nc-nd)|last = Caraway|first = Brett Robert |url-status = live|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090451/http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1216/720|archive-date = March 4, 2016|df = mdy-all}}</ref> This file-sharing culture was termed as [[cyber socialism]], whose legalisation was not the expected [[Cyber-utopianism|cyber-utopia]].{{Clarify|reason=expected utopia? i've tried making sense of it, but I'm not 100% please assess and reword, if necessary.|date=August 2022}}.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Filby |first1=Michael |title=Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulations for an Open Internet |journal=Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology |date=2011 |volume=6 |pages=207 |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fjcolate6&div=24&id=&page= |access-date=28 December 2021 |archive-date=January 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117180023/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fjcolate6&div=24&id=&page= |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=cybers>{{cite journal |last1=Filby |first1=Michael |title=Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons |journal=International Journal of Private Law |date=1 January 2008 |volume=1 |issue=1–2 |pages=94–109 |doi=10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435 |url=https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435 |access-date=28 December 2021 |issn=1753-6235 |archive-date=January 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117180020/https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435 |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== US legal controversy ===
In [[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.|Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)]], the Supreme Court found that Sony's new product, the [[Betamax]] (the first mass-market consumer [[videocassette recorder]]), did not subject Sony to secondary copyright liability because it was capable of substantial non-infringing uses. Decades later, this case became the jumping-off point for all peer-to-peer copyright infringement litigation.


==Economic impact==
The first peer-to-peer case was A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the 9th Circuit considered whether Napster was liable as a secondary infringer. First, the court considered whether Napster was contributorily liable for copyright infringement. To be found contributorily liable, Napster must have engaged in "personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."<ref>A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) ''citing'' Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publ'g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998)</ref> The court found that Napster was contributorily liable for the copyright infringement of its end-users because it "knowingly encourages and assists the infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights."<ref>Napster, at 1020.</ref> The court analyzed whether Napster was vicariously liable for copyright infringement. The standard applied by the court was whether Napster "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities."<ref>Napster, at 1022, ''citing'' Gershwin Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc, 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971.</ref> The court found that Napster did receive a financial benefit, and had the right and ability to supervise the activity, meaning that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of vicarious infringement.<ref>Napster, at 1024.</ref> The court denied all of Napster's defenses, including its claim of fair use.
According to David Glenn, writing in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'', "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file-sharing hurts sales".<ref name="HigherEdu">{{cite news |last=Glenn |first=David |date=July 17, 2008 |title=Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/dispute-over-the-economics-of-file-sharing-intensifies-989/ |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education |location=Washington, D. C. |access-date=November 5, 2020 |archive-date=April 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415085131/https://www.chronicle.com/article/dispute-over-the-economics-of-file-sharing-intensifies-989/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A literature review by Professor Peter Tschmuck found 22 [[independent study|independent studies]] on the effects of music file sharing. "Of these 22 studies, 14 – roughly two-thirds – conclude that unauthorized downloads have a 'negative or even highly negative impact' on recorded music sales. Three of the studies found no significant impact while the remaining five found a positive impact."<ref>Hart, Terry. [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/02/more-evidence-for-copyright-protection/ More Evidence for Copyright Protection] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205093806/http://www.copyhype.com/2012/02/more-evidence-for-copyright-protection/ |date=February 5, 2012 }}, copyhype.com, February 1, 2012. "The literature review looked at a 23rd study but did not classify it here since the author presented a mixed conclusion: the overall effect of unauthorized downloads is insignificant, but for unknown artists, there is a 'strongly negative' effect on recorded music sales."</ref><ref>AJ Sokolov, Daniel . [http://www.heise.de/ct/meldung/Wissenschaftler-Studien-ueber-Tauschboersen-unbrauchbar-1020532.html Wissenschaftler: Studien über Tauschbörsen unbrauchbar] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130603034104/http://www.heise.de/ct/meldung/Wissenschaftler-Studien-ueber-Tauschboersen-unbrauchbar-1020532.html |date=June 3, 2013 }}, ''[[c't]]'' magazine, June 11, 2010.</ref>


A study by economists [[Felix Oberholzer-Gee]] and Koleman Strumpf in 2004 concluded that music file sharing's effect on sales was "statistically indistinguishable from zero".<ref name="levine">Levine, Robert. ''Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back'', Bodley Head, February 2011, {{ISBN|1847921485}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf|title=The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis|last=Oberholzer|first=Felix|author2=Koleman Strumpf|access-date=June 13, 2008|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080613031108/http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf|archive-date=June 13, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref> This research was disputed by other economists, most notably Stan Liebowitz, who said Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had made multiple assumptions about the music industry "that are just not correct."<ref name="levine" /><ref name=HRI_1>{{cite journal| title=How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?| last=Liebowitz|first=Stan J.| url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228172429| journal=Intellectual Property: Copyright Law eJournal| publisher=ResearchGate GmbH| date=23 September 2007| access-date=13 December 2023| doi=10.2139/ssrn.1014399| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100827225353/http://musicbusinessresearch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/paper-stan-j-liebowitz1.pdf| archive-date=August 27, 2010}}</ref> In June 2010, ''Billboard'' reported that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had "changed their minds", now finding "no more than 20% of the recent decline in sales is due to sharing".<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i82a006de3290b1a63323f3e4ee910ca9 Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101209002810/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i82a006de3290b1a63323f3e4ee910ca9 |date=December 9, 2010 }} ''Billboard''. June 22, 2010.</ref> However, citing [[Nielsen SoundScan]] as their source, the co-authors maintained that illegal downloading had not deterred people from being original. "In many creative industries, monetary incentives play a reduced role in motivating authors to remain creative. Data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file-sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. Since the advent of file sharing, the production of music, books, and movies has increased sharply."<ref>Oberholzer & Strumpf. "File Sharing and Copyright" ''NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy'', Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. "Artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form – many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars – suggesting a reduction in monetary incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic production."</ref> Glenn Peoples of ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' disputed the underlying data, saying "SoundScan's number for new releases in any given year represents new commercial titles, not necessarily new creative works."<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ic193b6eacf48409b52f1ab027d2d2b6c Analysis: Are Musicians Losing the Incentive to Create?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101103010017/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ic193b6eacf48409b52f1ab027d2d2b6c |date=November 3, 2010 }} ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]''. July 26, 2010.</ref> The RIAA likewise responded that "new releases" and "new creative works" are two separate things. "[T]his figure includes re-releases, new compilations of existing songs, and new digital-only versions of catalog albums. SoundScan has also steadily increased the number of retailers (especially non-traditional retailers) in their sample over the years, better capturing the number of new releases brought to market. What Oberholzer and Strumpf found was better ability to track new album releases, not greater incentive to create them."<ref>Friedlander, Joshua P. & Lamy, Jonathan. [http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/view_35.pdf Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121074926/http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/view_35.pdf |date=January 21, 2012 }} ifpi.org, July 19, 2010.</ref>
The next major peer-to-peer case was MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court found that even if Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which the Sony court found was enough to relieve one of secondary copyright liability, Grokster was still secondarily liable because it induced its users to infringe.<ref>MGM v. Grokster, 514 U.S. 913, 940 (2005).</ref><ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#MGM_Grokster MGM v. Grokster]</ref>


A 2006 study prepared by Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz, published by [[Industry Canada]], was "unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada".<ref>[http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080914010619/http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html |date=September 14, 2008 }}, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz</ref> The results of this survey were similarly criticized by academics and a subsequent revaluation of the same data by George R. Barker of the [[Australian National University]] reached the opposite conclusion.<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-a-new-look-at-an-old-survey-1006083952.story A New Look at an Old Survey Finds P2P Hurts Music Purchases] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206050415/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-a-new-look-at-an-old-survey-1006083952.story |date=February 6, 2012 }}, ''Billboard''. February 2, 2012.</ref> "In total, 75% of P2P downloaders responded that if P2P were not available they would have purchased either through paid sites only (9%), CDs only (17%) or through CDs and pay sites (49%). Only 25% of people say they would not have bought the music if it were not available on P2P for free." Barker thus concludes; "This clearly suggests P2P network availability is reducing music demand of 75% of music downloaders which is quite contrary to Andersen and Frenz's much published claim."<ref>Barker, George R. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1990153 Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205104922/https://ssrn.com/abstract=1990153 |date=February 5, 2012 }} [[Social Science Research Network]]. January 23, 2012.</ref>
It is important to note the concept of blame in cases such as these. In a pure P2P network there is no host, but in practice most P2P networks are a hybrid (see "Computer science perspective" below). This has led groups such as the RIAA to file suit against individual users, rather than against companies. The reason that Napster was subject to violation of the law and ultimately lost in court was because Napster was not a pure P2P network but instead maintained a central server which maintained an index of the files currently available on the network.


According to the 2017 paper "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" by the [[European Commission]], illegal usage increases game sales, stating "The overall conclusion is that for games, illegal online transactions induce more legal transactions."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf|title=Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU|access-date=February 3, 2018|archive-date=January 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180120001830/https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
Around the world in 2006, an estimated five billion songs, equating to approximately 38,000 years in music were swapped on peer-to-peer websites, while 509 million songs were purchased online. The same study which estimated these findings also found that artists that had an online presence ended up retaining more of the profits rather than the music companies<ref>[http://www.ibisworld.com/pressrelease/pressrelease.aspx?prid=127 June 2008, The Tables Have Turned: Rock Stars – Not Record Labels – Cashing In On Digital Revolution], ''IBISWorld''</ref>


===Market dominance===
In November 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the [[Secure Federal File Sharing Act]],<ref>{{USBill|111|hr|4098}}, ''The Secure Federal File Sharing Act'', introduced Nov. 17, 2009</ref> which would, if enacted, prohibit the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing software by U.S. government employees and contractors on computers used for federal government work.<ref>{{cite news |title=House Pushes Ban On Peer-To-Peer Software For Federal Employees |author=Richard Lardner |newspaper=Huffington Post |date=2009-11-18 |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/house-pushes-ban-on-peert_n_361897.html|accessdate=2009-11-18 }}</ref>
A paper in the journal ''[[Operations Research: A Journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences|Management Science]]'' found that file-sharing decreased the chance of survival for low ranked albums on music charts and increased exposure to albums that were ranked high on the music charts, allowing popular and well-known artists to remain on the music charts more often. This hurt new and less-known artists while promoting the work of already popular artists and celebrities.<ref>Bhattacharjee, Sudip., Gopal, Ram D., Lertwachara, Kaveepan. Marsden, James R. & Telang, Rahul. [http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/53/9/1359.full.pdf+html The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214152135/http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/53/9/1359.full.pdf+html |date=February 14, 2012 }} ''Management Science'' 2007.</ref>


A more recent study that examined pre-release file-sharing of music albums, using BitTorrent software, also discovered positive impacts for "established and popular artists but not newer and smaller artists." According to Robert G. Hammond of [[North Carolina State University]], an album that leaked one month early would see a modest increase in sales. "This increase in sales is small relative to other factors that have been found to affect album sales."
===UK government policy on illegal file sharing===


<blockquote>"File-sharing proponents commonly argue that file-sharing democratizes music consumption by 'levelling the playing field' for new/small artists relative to established/popular artists, by allowing artists to have their work heard by a wider audience, lessening the advantage held by established/popular artists in terms of promotional and other support. My results suggest that the opposite is happening, which is consistent with evidence on file-sharing behaviour."<ref>Hammond. Robert G. "[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/Hammond_File_Sharing_Leak.pdf Profit Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120523032458/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/Hammond_File_Sharing_Leak.pdf |date=May 23, 2012 }}" May 2012. File sharing benefits mainstream albums such as pop music but not albums in niche genres such as indie music. ... Further, the finding that file sharing redistributes sales toward established/popular artists is inconsistent with claims made by proponents of file sharing that file-sharing democratizes music consumption."</ref></blockquote>
File sharing has been a contentious issue in the UK and the UK government believed action would help ''drive the UK’s vital creative and digital sectors to bolster future growth and jobs.'' <ref>[http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/digital-economy-bill/ Progress of the Digital Economy Bill]</ref> According to a 2009 report carried out by the [[International Federation of the Phonographic Industry]] ''95 per cent of music downloads are unauthorised, with no payment to artists and producers'' <ref>[http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/dmr2009.html International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IPFI) Digital Music Report 2009]</ref>. Market research firm [[Harris Interactive]] believed there to be 8.3 million file sharers in the UK. Moreover the [[British Phonographic Industry|BPI]] claimed that in 1999 UK music purchases totalled £1,113 million but had fallen to £893.8 million in 2008 <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/facts_about_filesharing.html Cellan-Jones, Rory (2009) "Facts about file-sharing" BBC NEWS 27th November 2009]</ref>. However it has also been said that there is no accurate way to know the full extent of the problem.


''Billboard'' cautioned that this research looked only at the pre-release period and not continuous file sharing following a release date. "The problem in believing [[Copyright infringement#"Piracy"|piracy]] helps sales is deciding where to draw the line between legal and illegal ... Implicit in the study is the fact that both buyers and sellers are required in order for pre-release file sharing to have a positive impact on album sales. Without iTunes, Amazon, and Best Buy, file-sharers would be just file sharers rather than purchasers. If you carry out the 'file-sharing should be legal' argument to its logical conclusion, today's retailers will be tomorrow's file-sharing services that integrate with their respective [[cloud storage service]]s."<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/business-matters-pre-release-file-sharing-1007125352.story Business Matters: Pre-release File Sharing Helps Album Sales, Says a Study. So Why Not Replicate This Legally?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525073225/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/business-matters-pre-release-file-sharing-1007125352.story |date=May 25, 2012 }} ''Billboard''. May 22, 2012.</ref>
The Digital Economy Bill has now become the [[Digital Economy Act 2010]] which received [[Royal Assent]] on 9 April 2010.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7571532/Digital-Economy-Act-what-happens-next.html |title=Digital Economy Act: what happens next? |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |author=Emma Barnett |date=9 April 2010}}</ref> The Act may have serious repercussions for both file sharers and internet services providers.<ref>[http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/820835-digital-economy-bill-passes-as-critics-warn-of-catastrophic-disaster Phillips, Tom (2010) Digital Economy Bill passes as critics warn of "catastrophic disaster" Metro 8th April 2010]</ref>


===Availability===
Previous cases in the UK have seen internet users fined £2500 for sharing music on the internet <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/4166784.stm Mother to settle web music charge BBC News 20th August 2005]</ref>.
Many argue that file-sharing has forced the owners of entertainment content to make it more widely available legally through fees or advertising on-demand on the internet. In a 2011 report by [[Sandvine]] showed that [[Netflix]] traffic had come to surpass that of [[BitTorrent]].<ref>[https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/05/SandvineGlobalInternetSpringReport2011.pdf Global Internet Phenomena Report - Spring 2011] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113020428/http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/05/SandvineGlobalInternetSpringReport2011.pdf |date=January 13, 2012 }} Sandvine Global Internet Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. May 12, 2011</ref>
The Digital Economy Bill proposed that [[internet service providers]] (ISPs) issue warnings by sending letters to those illegally downloading files. Following this, the bill proposed that ISPs slow down or even suspend internet access for repeat offenders of illegal file sharing. The bill aimed to force internet service providers to disclose the identities of those offenders as well as making conditions for the regulation of copyright licensing. The Digital Economy Bill incorporated a [[graduated response]] policy despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convicted of copyright offences <ref>[http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html Digital Economy Bill]</ref>. The bill also introduced fines of up to £50,000 for criminal offences relating to copyright infringement - for example if music is downloaded with intent to sell. The high penalty is considered to be ''proportionate to the harm caused to UK industries'' <ref>[http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/2009/11/copyright/ Digital Economy Bill Copyright Factsheet November 2009]</ref>. An appeals process exists whereby the accused can contest the case however concern has been expressed that this process will be costly and that, in requiring the individual to prove their innocence, ''the bill reverses the core principles of natural justice'' <ref name="guardian.co.uk">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/16/digital-economy-lords Johnson, Bobbie (2010) “Concern as Lords Pass Digital Economy Bill to Lords” The Guardian 16th March 2010]</ref>. Similarly, a website may be blocked if it is considered that it ''has been, is being, or is likely to be'' used in connection with copyright infringement <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-passes-third-reading Arthur, Charles (2010) "Digital Economy Bill rushed through Wash-Up in late night session" The Guardian 8th April 2010]</ref> meaning that a site doesn't actually have to be involved in copyright infringement - rather ''intent'' must be proved.


==Copyright issues==
The implications of the Digital Economy Act on providers of public [[Wi-Fi]] access is uncertain. Responsibility for breaches could be passed on to the provider due to the difficulty in identifying individual users. The internet provider therefore may risk losing internet access or facing a hefty fine if an infringement of copyright takes place. Many libraries and small cafés for example may find this impossible to adhere to as it would require detailed logging of all those requiring internet access. In libraries in particular this may provide challenges to the profession’s importance of user privacy and could force changes in future policies such as Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Public libraries utilise AUPs in order to protect creative works from copyright infringement and themselves from possible legal liability. However, unless the AUP is accompanied by the provision of knowledge on how to obey laws it could be seen as unethical, as blame for any breaches is passed to the user <ref>Britz, J. J. (2002). Information Ethics: its Demarcation and Application. In: Lipinski, T. A. (eds.) Libraries, Museums, and Archives: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the New Era of Information. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 194-219.</ref>
{{main|Legal aspects of file sharing}}
File sharing raises copyright issues and has led to many lawsuits. In the [[United States]], some of these lawsuits have even reached the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]. For example, in ''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.|MGM v. Grokster]]'', the Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held liable if their software is marketed as a tool for copyright infringement.


On the other hand, not all file sharing is illegal. Content in the [[public domain]] can be freely shared. Even works covered by [[copyright]] can be shared under certain circumstances. For example, some artists, publishers, and [[record label]]s grant the public a license for unlimited distribution of certain works, sometimes with conditions, and they advocate [[free content]] and file sharing as a promotional tool.<ref>{{cite book|title=Secure Federal File Sharing Act : Report (to Accompany H.r. 4098) (Including Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office).|date=March 11, 2010|publisher=United States.|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015085442476;view=1up;seq=1|access-date=February 15, 2018|archive-date=September 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920183315/https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015085442476;view=1up;seq=1|url-status=live}}</ref>
The hospitality sector may also be affected by the Digital Economy Act. The British Hospitality Association has stated that hotels would have particular problems in providing details of guest’s internet access to Internet Service Providers and entire hotels may face disconnection. They have also expressed their concern that an individual's actions may lead to such a drastic outcome.<ref>Arthur, C. (2010). Opposition to the Digital Economy Bill. The Guardian. Availability: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/digital-economy-bill. Last accessed 30 March 2010.</ref>

The bill was met with a mixed response. Geoff Taylor of the BPI claims the bill is ''vital'' for the future of creative works in the UK <ref name="guardian.co.uk"/>. Moreover, the Conservative spokesman for Culture and Media stated that those illegally downloading should be given a criminal record. Conversely, Liberal Democrat spokesman for Culture and Media, Don Foster, claimed the bill was ''reckless and dangerous'' stating that children could unwittingly be file sharing causing an entire family to lose their internet connection. In addition to this, there was concern that hackers may access internet connections to illegally download files and leave the bill payer responsible.

Internet service providers were also hostile towards the bill. [[TalkTalk]] stated that suspending access to the internet breached human rights. This view may be shared by many, as a survey carried out by the BBC found that ''87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people"''<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8548190.stm Internet access is a fundamental right BBC News 8th March 2010]</ref>. Certainly, people require access to the internet for many aspects of their life for example shopping, online banking, education, work and even socialising. Furthermore, Talk Talk Director of Regulation, Andrew Heaney has acknowledged that file sharing is a problem but the answer is to educate people and create legal alternatives. Heaney has also argued that disconnected offenders will simply create other user names to hide their identity and continue downloading. Talk Talk has claimed that 80% of youngsters would continue to download regardless of the bill and that internet service providers are being forced to police this without any workable outcomes <ref>[http://pressoffice.talktalk.co.uk/news/item/music_fans_will_sidestep_filesharing_clampdown_says_talktalk/ "Music fans will sidestep filesharing clampdown says TalkTalk" TalkTalk Press Centre March 15th 2010]</ref>

Virgin media also criticised the Digital Economy Bill believing it to be ''heavy handed'' and likely to ''alienate customers''. Virgin advocate government persuasion rather than force to try and eradicate the problem of illegal file sharing <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6088949/BT-and-Virgin-Media-attack-Government-plans-to-curb-illegal-downloading.html Andrews, Amanda (2009) "BT and Virgin Media attack Government plans to curb illegal downloading" Telegraph 25th August 2009]</ref>

The bill provoked protests in many forms. The Guardian reported that hundreds were expected to march outside the House of Commons on March 24, 2010 <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/24/digital-economy-bill-protests Arthur, Charles (2010) "Hundreds expected outside parliament to protest at digital economy bill" The Guardian 24th March 2010]</ref> . Moreover, an estimated 12,000 people sent emails to their MPs, through the citizen advocacy organisation 38 degrees. 38 degress objected to the speed with which the bill was rushed through parliament, without proper debate, due to the imminent dissolution of parliament prior to a general election.<ref>Guardian, Hundreds expected outside parliament to protest at digital economy bill. Arthur, Charles. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/24/digital-economy-bill-protests</ref> In October 2009 TalkTalk launched its Don't Disconnect Us campaign asking people to sign a petition against the proposal to cut off the internet connections of those accused of illegal file sharing <ref>[http://www.dontdisconnect.us/ Don't Disconnect Us campaign group website]</ref>. By November 2009 the petition had almost 17,000 signatories <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6643510/Stephen-Fry-backs-Digital-Economy-Bill-protests.html Beaumont, Claudine (2009) "Stephen Fry backs Digital Economy Bill protests" Telegraphy 14th November 2009]</ref> and by December had reached over 30,000 <ref>[http://www.talktalkblog.co.uk/2009/12/14/our-don-t-disconnect-us-petition-passes-30-000-signatories/ Heaney, Andrew (2009) "Our Don't Disconnect Us petition passes 30,000 signatories" TalkTalk Blog]</ref>.

In addition to protests against the bill as a whole, the [[Pirate Party UK|Pirate Party]] in the UK has called for non-commercial file sharing to be legalised. Formed in 2009 and intending to enter candidates in the 2010 UK general election, the Pirate Party advocates reform to copyright and patent laws and a reduction in government surveillance .
<ref>Pirate Party Official website, http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/</ref>

===File sharing in Europe===

Problems with file sharing in Europe have not gone undocumented. A March 2010 study entitled ''Building a Digital Economy: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the EU's Creative Industries'' published figures stating that 1.2 million jobs could be lost in the [[European Union]] and up to €240 billion in retail income, by 2015.<ref>[http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/Building%20a%20Digital%20Economy%20-%20TERA%281%29.pdf/ Building a digital economy: the importance of saving jobs in the EU's creative industries, Tera Consultants, March 2010]</ref>

April 2008 saw the [[European Parliament]] block attempts to criminalize file sharing by individuals, moreover the idea of cutting off internet access of offenders was also thrown out. 314 MEPs voted in favour of an amendment to the [[Telecoms Package]] (2007) to abandon these proposals with 297 voting against.<ref>Meller, Paul. 'Europe rejects plan to criminalize file-sharing', [http://www.infoworld.com/t/architecture/europe-rejects-plan-criminalize-file-sharing-265], April 2008</ref>

November 2009 saw the European Parliament vote again on further changes to the [[Telecoms Package]]. In regards to file sharing MEPs agreed to compromise and protect user's rights. A [[European Parliament]] statement read "A user's internet access may be restricted, if necessary and proportionate, only after a fair and impartial procedure including the user's right to be heard." EU members were given until May 2011 to implement these changes into their own laws.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8376004.stm/ European MPs votes on new telecoms law, 24/11/2009]</ref>

Before Britain introduced the [[Digital Economy Act 2010]], France paved the way with the Creation and Internet Bill which was passed in January 2010 after a lengthy battle in the French parliament. The law is enforced by an agency called the Higher Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of Copyright on the Internet [[HADOPI law]].

Under the law those accused of copyright infringement via the Internet are issued with a warning letter, then a second warning letter. Breaches for a third time are met with fines or, in some cases, this graduated response results in the user’s internet connection being terminated.

In comparison to the UK's Digital Economy Act, in France a judge has to sign-off on any account suspensions as opposed to the agency enforcing the law.

The bill's supporters in France believe the bill "is a model for other countries around the world that want to protect their creative industries and make clear to ordinary web-users that not everything is for free".<ref>New internet piracy law comes into effect in France. Schofield, Hugh (2010). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8436745.stm/.</ref> President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] and his wife, the model and singer [[Carla Bruni Sarkozy|Carla Bruni]], were supporters of the legislation{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}.

Those{{Who|date=July 2010}} opposing the bill have objected to its implementation on the grounds, they say, it will neither prevent file-sharing nor turn pirates into legitimate users. Furthermore, they have argued that disconnecting a citizen's internet access is unfair given the role the Web fulfils both commercially and politically.<ref>France Approves Wide Crackdown on Net Piracy. Pfanner, Eric (2009). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/technology/23net.html?_r=2/.</ref>

It has been reported that Spain has one of the highest rates of file-sharing in Europe.<ref name="Tremlett, Giles 2010">Spain finds that film piracy is a hard habit to break. Tremlett, Giles (2010). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/spain-film-piracy-downloading-dvds.</ref> In a twelve month period it was reported that there were 2.4 billion downloads of copyrighted works including music, video games, software and films in Spain. In 2010 statistics indicated that the figure for the Spanish population using file sharing sites was 30%, which was double the European average of 15%.<ref name="Tremlett, Giles 2010"/>

According to record labels this had a negative impact on the industry, with investment drying up, according to IFPI head John Kennedy. For example in 2003 10 new Spanish artists appeared in the top 50 album chart, however in 2009 not a single new Spanish artist featured in the same chart. Purchases of albums dropped by two-thirds over a period of five years leading up to 2010. "Spain runs the risk of turning into a cultural desert ... I think it's a real shame that people in authority don't see the damage being done."<ref>Allen, Katie. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/21/music-industry-piracy-hits-sales Piracy continues to cripple music industry as sales fall 10%] ''The Guardian''. 21 January 2010.</ref>

Nevertheless, the association of music promoters states that "Music is alive" as despite the decrease in record sales the income due to concert tickets has increased a 117% in the last decade, it was €69.9 millions in 2000 whereas it increased to €151.1 millions in 2008. The number of concerts doubled itself from 71,045 in 2000 to 144,859 in 2008, and the number of people attending concerts increased from 21.8 millions in 2000 to more than 33 millions in 2008.<ref>El número de conciertos en España y la recaudación por venta de entradas se multiplicaron por dos en la última década. http://www.europapress.es/cultura/noticia-numero-conciertos-espana-recaudacion-venta-entradas-multiplicaron-dos-ultima-decada-20100223151751.html</ref>

Despite the problems endured by the entertainment industry, file sharing and torrent websites were ruled to be legal in Spain in March 2010. The judge who was responsible for the court ruling stated that “''P2P networks are mere conduits for the transmission of data between Internet users, and on this basis they do not infringe rights protected by Intellectual Property laws''”.<ref>File Sharing and Torrent Websites Now Legal in Spain. Wilhelm, Alex. (2010). http://thenextweb.com/eu/2010/03/15/file-sharing-torrenting-now-legal-spain/</ref>

In May 2010, Irish internet provider Eircom have announced they will cut broadband of illegal file sharers. Initially, infringing customers will be telephoned by Eircom to see if they are aware of the illegal downloads. When customers are identified for a third time they will lose their internet connection for 7 days, if caught for a forth time they will lose their internet connection for a year.<ref>[http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/Eircom0089/category/905 Eircom to cut broadband to file sharers]</ref>

===File Sharing in China===

The People's Republic of China is known for having one of the most comprehensive and extensive approaches to observing web activity and censoring information in the world. Popular social networking sites such as Twitter & Facebook cannot be accessed by its citizens. China requires sites that share video files to have permits and be controlled by the state or owned by state. These permits last for three years and will need renewal after that time period. Web sites that violate any rules will be subject to a 5 year ban from providing videos online.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9172/china_to_require_video_filesharing_sites_to_get_permits/ | title = China to Require Video File-Sharing sites to get permits? | accessdate = 2010-05-26 | last = Moya | first = Jared | date = 01/04/08 | work = Zeropaid}}</ref> One of the country's most used file sharing programs, BTChina got shutdown in December 2009. It was shutdown by the State Administration of Radio Film and Television for not obtaining a license to legally distribute media such as audio and video files.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/09/china-file-sharing-website-censorship.html | title = China Shuts Down File-Sharing Site | accessdate = 2010-05-26 | first = Associated Press | date = 09/09/09 | publisher = Canadian Broadcasting Company}}</ref> Alexa, a company that monitors web traffic, claims that BTChina had 80,000 daily users. Being one of the primary file sharing websites for Chinese citizens, this shutdown affected the lives of many internet users in China. The Chinese government is primarily concerned with people being able to access information that has not been filtered, not the issue of copyright infringement{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}. China has an online population of 222.4 million people and 65.8% are said to participate in some form of illegal file-sharing on websites.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87345/china-shutters-bittorrent-sites-over-porn-copyrighted-material/ | title = China Shutters BitTorrent Sites Over Porn, Copyrighted Material | accessdate = 2010-05-26 | last = Moya | first = Jared | date = 12/08/09 | work = Zeropaid}}</ref>

===File Sharing in South Korea===

In March 2009, [[South Korea]] passed legislation that gave internet users a form of three strikes for illegal file sharing with the intention of curbing online theft.<ref>{{cite web | url =
South Korea’s “Three-Strikes” Law Takes Effect | title = South Korea’s
“Three-Strikes” Law Takes Effect | accessdate = 2010-5-25 | last =
Moya | first = Jared | date = 2009-7-23 | publisher = Zero Paid}}</ref>
This is also known as graduated response.
As the number of cases of illegal sharing increases, the proportion of youth involved has increased. As illegal file shares are monitored, they are sent messages instructing them to stop. If their illegal file sharing continues, their internet connection may be disconnected for up to six months.<ref>{{cite web | url =
http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/01/20/graduated-response-and-copyright-an-idea-that-is-right-for-the-times/
| title = Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for
the times | accessdate = 2010-5-25 | last = Barry | first = Sookman |
coauthors = Dan Glover | date = 2010-1-20}}</ref>
The force behind this movement is the [[Korean National Assembly]]’s Committee
on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C). With help from local internet service providers, the CCSTB&C have gained
access and formed communication channels to specific file sharing users.<ref>{{cite web | url =
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2009/04/133_42594.html | title
= Upload a Song, Lose your Internet Connection | accessdate = 2010-5-25
| last = Tong-hyung | first = Kim | date = 2009-7-23 | publisher = Korea
Times}}</ref>

===File Sharing in Mexico===

Recording companies pursued approximately 20,000 lawsuits in 17 countries in 2009 against illegal file-sharing; however, not a single case was filed within Mexico. Because Mexico’s government has made opening legitimate businesses bureaucratic and costly, consumers have learned to count on a much cheaper means of acquiring music and other media for their entertainment. Consumers continue to illegally file share because the laws in Mexico are very weak and have not been updated in order to take into account online trade such as file sharing; therefore, intellectual property laws do not punish file sharing and Mexico’s intellectual property laws cannot affect file sharers because no money is being exchanged. The issue of file sharing is becoming especially problematic for the entertainment industry in the sense that fast broadband connections have become even more common within Mexico, doubling to 61 percent of Web-enabled Mexicans in the last two years. Although file sharing laws are almost non-existent in Mexico, Mexican legislators are considering the approval of the punishment of unauthorized file sharers with fines of up to $20,000 and ten years in jail. However, even if the laws do change in regards to file sharing, finding offenders will not be easy by any means because approximately one-third of Mexico’s Internet users go online at Internet Cafes, where several people may use the same computer every hour.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13617633/ns/business-world_business// | title = In Mexico, music piracy rising with broadband | accessdate = 2010-05-27 | first = Associated Press | date = 2006-7-7 | work = MSNBC}}</ref> Ultimately, the Internet poses two challenges within Mexico: (1) the sale of counterfeit/pirate hard goods and (2) the distribution of illicit new releases, subtitles, covers, and dubbed versions of films, as well as music, software and books. There are many pirate servers that are hosted within Mexico; however, the majority of these pirate servers are based in the U.S. and Europe but administered in Mexico. According to the recording industry, Internet piracy of music dominates approximately 90% of the total music market in Mexico with Peer to Peer networks as being the most predominant form of music piracy.<ref>{{Cite journal | first = International Intellectual Property Alliance | contribution = MEXICO | title = 2010 SPECIAL 301 REPORT ON COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT | place = Mexico | pages = 66 | date = [[2010-2-18]] | id = | contribution-url = http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301MEXICO.pdf | accessdate = 2010-05-27 | postscript = <!--None-->}}</ref>

===File sharing advocates===
{{Further|[[Anti-copyright]]}}

An anti-copyright researcher wrote a paper to argue that file sharing doesn't hurt people financially
and that movie, game, and other types of media are not seeing any drop in sales; but a rise and P2P file sharing is only one of many factors attributed to the recent drop in CD sales<ref name=factz>http://www.thefactz.org/economics/p2p_summary.html</ref>

A different type of file sharing is also occurring in academic and research circles, where researchers wish to access subscription journals and books, but do not wish to pay a licence fee. File-sharing websites allow researchers to request articles, which are then found by those who do have access to them, and then the articles are posted to the website for all to access,<ref>{{ cite journal |author=Masters, K. |title=Opening the non-open access medical journals: Internet-based sharing of journal articles on a medical web site |journal=The Internet Journal of Medical Informatics |volume=5 |issue=1 | year=2009 | url=http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_medical_informatics/volume_5_number_1_52/article/opening-the-non-open-access-medical-journals-internet-based-sharing-of-journal-articles-on-a-medical-web-site.html}}</ref> a practice that appears to be unknown to many editors of these journals.<ref>{{ cite journal |author=Masters, K. |title=Articles shared on a medical web site – an international survey of non-open access journal editors |journal=The Internet Journal of Medical Informatics |volume=5 |issue=2 | year=2010 | url=http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_medical_informatics/volume_5_number_2_51/article/articles-shared-on-a-medical-web-site-an-international-survey-of-non-open-access-journal-editors.html}}</ref> The file sharing is extended even further by researchers who share library access codes (usernames and passwords) so that other researchers can access the library databases directly themselves.<ref>{{ cite journal |author=Masters, K. |title=Opening the closed-access medical journals: Internet-based sharing of institutions’ access codes on a medical web-site |journal=The Internet Journal of Medical Informatics |volume=5 |issue=2 | year=2010 | url=http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_medical_informatics/volume_5_number_2_51/article/opening-the-closed-access-medical-journals-internet-based-sharing-of-institutions-access-codes-on-a-medical-web-site.html}}</ref>

Significant cultural sources for arguments against copyright include the [[Free Software]] culture<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/anarchism.html |accessdate=2010-04-01 |first=Eben |last=Moglen |year=1999 |month=May |title=Anarchism Triumphant}}</ref>, [[anarchism]], the [[pirate]] and [[warez]] cultures, [[libertarian]] and [[civil libertarian]] groups <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing |title=File Sharing |accessdate=2010-04-01 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm |title=Anti-Copyright Resources |accessdate=2010-04-01 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html |title=The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights |first=Roderick T. |last=Long |year=1995 |journal=Formulations |publisher=Free Nation Foundation}}</ref>. [[Rasmus Fleischer]] argues that [[Web 2.0]] has changed society so significantly that personal behavior and business models simply make copyright law irrelevant.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://slobodnakultura.org/media/after-copyright-rasmus-fleischer-magnus-eriksson |accessdate=2010-04-01 |title=After copyright |first1=Rasmus |last1=Fleischer |first2=Magnus |last2=Eriksson |publisher=Festival of Free Culture No 2 |location=Gallery of Museum of Contemporary Art, Belgrade |date=2008-03-08}}</ref>

===Available legal alternatives===
[[Voluntary Collective Licensing]] - making file sharing networks subscribe-only for a small fee and then distribute the collected money among the artists based on the popularity of their work - has been proposed as a legal alternative to illegal file sharing. Another alternative is the [[threshold pledge system]].

==Public perception and usage==
In 2004, an estimated 70 million people participated 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> According to a [[CBS News]] poll, nearly 70 percent of 18 to 29 year olds thought file sharing was acceptable in some circumstances and 58 percent of all [[United States|Americans]] who followed the file sharing issue considered it acceptable in at least some circumstances.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK] ''CBS News'', Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, 2003-09-18</ref>

In January 2006, 32 million Americans over the age of 12 had downloaded at least one feature length movie from the Internet, 80 percent of whom had done so exclusively over P2P. Of the population sampled, 40 percent felt that downloading copyrighted movies off the Internet constituted a very serious offense, however 78 percent believed taking a DVD from a store without paying for it constituted a very serious offense.<ref>[http://www.srgnet.com/pdf/Movie%20File-Sharing%20Booming%20Release%20Jan%2024%2007%20Final.pdf Solutions Research Group - Movie File-Sharing Booming: Study]</ref>

In February 2008, the LA Times Blog published results of a US campus attitude survey which showed that 64 percent of respondents downloaded music regularly through file-sharing networks and other unauthorized sources. The respondents were also asked to rate on a 1 to 7 scale "how nervous they were about being punished for illegal downloading" (with 1 being "not concerned" and 7 being "extremely concerned"). Two-thirds answered 1 (43 percent) or 2 (24 percent) but only 4 percent answered 5 or 6, and none answered 7, "extremely concerned".<ref>Jon Healey. February 20, 2008. [http://opinion.latimes.com/bitplayer/2008/02/campus-attitude.html BLOG: Bit Player: Hollywood's Love-Hate Relationship with Technology: "Campus attitudes: a microsample"], ''Los Angeles Times''.</ref><ref>Marco Cerna and Laura Thompson. September 30, 2004. [http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2004-09-30/news/university-warnings-and-riaa-lawsuits-fail-to-deter-file-sharing "University warnings and RIAA lawsuits fail to deter file-sharing"], ''The Georgetown Voice''.</ref>

In July 2008, 20 percent of Europeans used file sharing networks to obtain music, while 10 percent used paid-for digital music services such as iTunes.<ref>17:41 GMT, Thursday, 3 July 2008 18:41 UK. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7486743.stm Technology: "Warning letters to 'file-sharers'"], ''BBC NEWS''.</ref>

In February 2009, a Tiscali UK survey found that 75 percent of the English public polled were aware of what was legal and illegal in relation to file sharing, however there was a divide as to where they felt the legal burden should be placed: 49 percent of people believed P2P companies should be held responsible for illegal file sharing on their networks, 18 percent viewed individual file sharers as the culprits, while 18 percent either didn’t know or chose not to answer.<ref>MarkJ - 24 February 2009 (1:46 PM). [http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkFVulFEAVbPsdkYcg.html "Tiscali UK Survey Reveals Illegal File Sharing Attitudes"], ''ISPreview UK News''.</ref> In the same survey, 60 percent of people reported downloading music because of a limited budget. A common attitude concerning music downloading was that of ‘why should one pay for something when they can get it for free?'

According to an earlier poll, 75 percent of young voters in [[Sweden]] (18-20) supported file sharing when presented with the statement: "I think it is OK to download files from the Net, even if it is illegal." Of the respondents, 38 percent said they "adamantly agreed" while 39 percent said they "partly agreed".<ref>TT/Adam Ewing. 8 Jun 06 09:54 CET. [http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=4014&date=20060608 "Young voters back file sharing"], ''The Local''.</ref>

==Risks==
Researchers have examined potential security risks including the release of personal information, bundled [[spyware]], and [[Computer virus|viruses]] downloaded from the network.<ref>By M. Eric Johnson, Dan McGuire, Nicholas D. Willey [http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2008/3075/00/30750383.pdf The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users]</ref> Some proprietary file sharing clients have been known to bundle [[malware]], though [[open source]] programs typically have not. Some open source file sharing packages have even provided integrated anti-virus scanning.<ref>[http://www.turnkeylinux.org/torrentserver Open source file sharing software with integrated anti-virus scanning]</ref>
A drastic increase in inadvertent P2P file sharing of personal and sensitive information became evident in 2009 at the beginning of President Obama's administration when the blueprints to the helicopter [[Marine One]] were made available to the public through a breach in security via a P2P file sharing site. Access to this information has the potential of being detrimental to US security.<ref name="CNET">Greg Sandoval. April 21, 2009 10:41 AM PDT. [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10224080-93.html "Congress to probe P2P sites over 'inadvertent sharing'"], ''CNET News''</ref>

Furthermore, shortly before this security breach, the ''[[Today (NBC program)|Today]]'' show had reported that more than 150,000 tax returns, 25,800 student loan applications and 626,000 credit reports had been inadvertently made available through file sharing.<ref name="CNET"/>

Since approximately 2004 [[identity theft]] has become more prevalent, and in July 2008 there was another inadvertent revealing of vast amounts of personal information through careless use of a P2P site. The "names, dates of birth, and [[Social Security number]]s of about 2,000 of (an investment) firm's clients" were exposed, "including [those of] [[Stephen Breyer|Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer]]."<ref name="CNET"/>

Researchers have discovered thousands of documents containing sensitive patient information on popular peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, including insurance details, personally identifying information, physician names and diagnosis codes on more than 28,000 individuals. Many of the documents contained sensitive patient communications, treatment data, medical diagnoses and psychiatric evaluations.<ref>Jaikumar Vijayan. May 17, 2010 [http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176883/P2P_networks_a_treasure_trove_of_leaked_health_care_data_study_finds?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2010-05-17 "P2P networks a treasure trove of leaked health care data, study finds"], ComputerWorld</ref>

The United States government has attempted to make users more aware of the potential risks involved with P2P file sharing programs through legislation such as H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act.<ref>[http://www.barrow.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=346&Itemid=72 "Hearing on Barrow P2P Legislation Held on Tuesday"], ''Congressman John Barrow''</ref> According to this act, it would be mandatory for individuals to be aware of the risks associated with peer-to-peer file sharing before purchasing software with informed consent of the user required prior to use of such programs. In addition, the act would allow users to block and remove P2P file sharing software from their computers at any time,<ref>[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1319 "Text of H.R. 1319: Informed P2P User Act"], ''GovTrack.us''</ref> with the [[Federal Trade Commission]] enforcing regulations.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 203: Line 83:


* [[Comparison of file sharing applications]]
* [[Comparison of file sharing applications]]
* [[Disk sharing]]
* [[File hosting service]]
* [[File sharing in Canada]]
* [[:Category:File sharing news sites|File sharing news sites]]
* [[File sharing timeline]]
* [[Graduated response]]
* [[Love for Sale (Bilal album)|''Love for Sale'' (Bilal album)]], an unreleased but infamously pirated album by [[Bilal (American singer)|Bilal]]<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Larrier|first=Travis|date=March 4, 2013|url=https://theshadowleague.com/bilal-is-the-future-and-the-present-and-the-past/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c2ffa10bef1f424fb252543ee09315d038103bd2-1595252623-0-AQaQvFZEknRWDZtLz_-KpHpRYNhNqscHTfCHp6Tr8hduX5gs6uyAaQfef1hB3snODkYFwgSlXH9pQZS_OgmovWZg1dxWOfdv6KYaotwCiVhAfOA1NooyRIZBbQ7AuwrnezemOt0aOvC5JqXaUG-ixf6x0eEfcLz6_aB4mZaVUtX5eXwwFSBkfNJmBxG6In4wWiDOMJXhVyzdm_YyrRyUJNYEEsTZ9jXVjo4xZCyDtxOzub5oRn9F3uGLl4IYob_-oI06lSh6NUnbSSYC8SejeXAaDrJ45SThoPXWHhy2_qU8bC0XPFFKmGzELGJ4Di6R6VT6lqtMNIwnKTLQL7_EXDk|title=Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)|magazine=The Shadow League|access-date=July 20, 2020|archive-date=July 20, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720152846/https://theshadowleague.com/bilal-is-the-future-and-the-present-and-the-past/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c2ffa10bef1f424fb252543ee09315d038103bd2-1595252623-0-AQaQvFZEknRWDZtLz_-KpHpRYNhNqscHTfCHp6Tr8hduX5gs6uyAaQfef1hB3snODkYFwgSlXH9pQZS_OgmovWZg1dxWOfdv6KYaotwCiVhAfOA1NooyRIZBbQ7AuwrnezemOt0aOvC5JqXaUG-ixf6x0eEfcLz6_aB4mZaVUtX5eXwwFSBkfNJmBxG6In4wWiDOMJXhVyzdm_YyrRyUJNYEEsTZ9jXVjo4xZCyDtxOzub5oRn9F3uGLl4IYob_-oI06lSh6NUnbSSYC8SejeXAaDrJ45SThoPXWHhy2_qU8bC0XPFFKmGzELGJ4Di6R6VT6lqtMNIwnKTLQL7_EXDk|url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[Missionary Church of Kopimism]]
* [[Open Music Model]]
* [[Open Music Model]]
* [[Publius (publishing system)]]
* [[Privacy in file sharing networks]]
* [[Torrent poisoning]]
* [[Trade group efforts against file sharing]]
* [[Trade group efforts against file sharing]]
* [[Warez]]
* [[Warez]]


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist}}


==Further reading==
==Further reading==
*Levine, Robert. ''Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back'', Bodley Head, February 2011.
* [[Shuman Ghosemajumder|Ghosemajumder, Shuman]]. ''[http://shumans.com/p2p-business-models.pdf Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models]''. [[MIT Sloan School of Management]], 2002.
* [[Shuman Ghosemajumder|Ghosemajumder, Shuman]]. ''[http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/8438 Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models]''. [[MIT Sloan School of Management]], 2002
* Steve Kelly. [http://www.networkmagic.com/advice/article/sharing-files-and-printers-with-vista.php File Sharing in Vista?]
* Silverthorne, Sean. ''[http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?]''. [[Harvard Business School|Harvard Business School Working Knowledge]], 2004.
* Silverthorne, Sean. ''[http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630024153/http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation |date=June 30, 2006 }}''. [[Harvard Business School|Harvard Business School Working Knowledge]], 2004.
* Ralf Steinmetz, Klaus Wehrle (Eds). [http://www.peer-to-peer.info/ Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications]. ISBN 3-540-29192-X, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3485, September 2005
* Ralf Steinmetz, Klaus Wehrle (Eds). [https://web.archive.org/web/20051103051636/http://www.peer-to-peer.info/ Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications]. {{ISBN|3-540-29192-X}}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3485, September 2005
* Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. [http://www.spinellis.gr/pubs/jrnl/2004-ACMCS-p2p/html/AS04.html A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies]. ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–371, December 2004. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1041680.1041681 doi:10.1145/1041680.1041681].
* Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. [http://www.spinellis.gr/pubs/jrnl/2004-ACMCS-p2p/html/AS04.html A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies]. ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–371, December 2004. {{doi|10.1145/1041680.1041681}}.
* Stefan Saroiu, P. Krishna Gummadi, and Steven D. Gribble. [http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~almeroth/classes/F02.276/papers/p2p-measure.pdf A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems]. Technical Report # UW-CSE-01-06-02. Department of Computer Science & Engineering. University of Washington. Seattle, WA, USA.
* Stefan Saroiu, P. Krishna Gummadi, and Steven D. Gribble. [http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~almeroth/classes/F02.276/papers/p2p-measure.pdf A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems]. Technical Report # UW-CSE-01-06-02. Department of Computer Science & Engineering. The University of Washington. Seattle, WA, USA.
<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
* [http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/danss/p2p/resources.html Selected Papers] — A collection of academic papers.

==External links==
* [http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/digital-economy-bill/. Digital Britain]<!--
===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
<!--| DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF |-->
<!--| DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF |-->
<!--| LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |-->
<!--| LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |-->
Line 235: Line 114:
<!--| See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details |-->
<!--| See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details |-->
<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
* {{dmoz|Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Web_Applications/Storage/|File storage web applications}}
{{intellectual property activism}}
{{File sharing protocols}}


==External links==
{{DEFAULTSORT:File Sharing}}
*{{Commonscatinline|File sharing}}

{{File sharing}}
{{Computer files}}
{{Software distribution}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:File sharing}}
[[Category:File sharing| ]]
[[Category:File sharing| ]]
[[Category:Peer-to-peer file sharing| ]]
[[Category:Internet terminology]]
[[Category:Internet Relay Chat]]
[[Category:Instant messaging]]
[[Category:Social networks]]
[[Category:Intellectual property law]]
[[Category:Intellectual property law]]

[[ar:مشاركة الملفات]]
[[da:Fildeling]]
[[de:Filesharing]]
[[es:Distribución de archivos]]
[[ko:파일 공유]]
[[it:File sharing]]
[[he:שיתוף קבצים]]
[[ja:ファイル共有ソフト]]
[[no:Fildeling]]
[[nn:Fildeling]]
[[pt:Compartilhamento de arquivos]]
[[ro:File sharing]]
[[ru:Совместное использование файлов]]
[[sq:Shpërndarje skedash]]
[[simple:File sharing]]
[[sv:Fildelning]]
[[zh:檔案分享]]

Latest revision as of 04:52, 19 December 2024

Part of a series on
File sharing
Technologies
Video on demand sites
BitTorrent sites
Academic/scholarly
File sharing networks
P2P clients
Streaming programs
Anonymous file sharing
Development and societal aspects
By country or region
Comparisons

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents or electronic books. Common methods of storage, transmission and dispersion include removable media, centralized servers on computer networks, Internet-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer networking.

File sharing technologies, such as BitTorrent, are integral to modern media piracy, as well as the sharing of scientific data and other free content.

History

[edit]
For a chronological guide, see Timeline of file sharing.

Files were first exchanged on removable media. Computers were able to access remote files using filesystem mounting, bulletin board systems (1978), Usenet (1979), and FTP servers (1970's). Internet Relay Chat (1988) and Hotline (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through chat and to exchange files. The mp3 encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and substantially reduced the size of audio files, grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, MP3.com and Audiogalaxy were established, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was unanimously passed, and the first mp3 player devices were launched.[1]

In June 1999, Napster was released as an unstructured centralized peer-to-peer system,[2] requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In December 1999, Napster was sued by several recording companies and lost in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc..[3] In the case of Napster, it has been ruled that an online service provider could not use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the DMCA if they had control of the network with a server.[4]

Gnutella, eDonkey2000, and Freenet were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. Gnutella, released in March, was the first decentralized file-sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no central point of failure. In July, Freenet was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the eDonkey2000 client and server software was released.[citation needed]

In March 2001, Kazaa was released. Its FastTrack network was distributed, though, unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as Morpheus off of the FastTrack network.[citation needed] In October 2001, the MPAA and the RIAA filed a lawsuit against the developers of Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster[5][6] that would lead to the US Supreme Court's MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. decision in 2005.

Shortly after its loss in court, Napster was shut down to comply with a court order. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its growth.[7] The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the LimeWire client and BitTorrent protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file-sharing program despite bundled malware and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit that effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.

Demonstrators protesting The Pirate Bay raid in 2006

From 2002 through 2003, a number of BitTorrent services were established, including Suprnova.org, isoHunt, TorrentSpy, and The Pirate Bay. In September 2003, the RIAA began filing lawsuits against users of P2P file sharing networks such as Kazaa.[8] As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). Also in 2003, the MPAA started to take action against BitTorrent sites, leading to the shutdown of Torrentse and Sharelive in July 2003.[9] With the shutdown of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the Razorback2 eDonkey server and temporarily took down The Pirate Bay.[10]

"The File Sharing Act was launched by Chairman Towns in 2009, this act prohibited the use of applications that allowed individuals to share federal information amongst one another. On the other hand, only specific file sharing applications were made available to federal computers" (the United States.Congress.House). In 2009, the Pirate Bay trial ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker. The decision was appealed, leading to a second guilty verdict in November 2010. In October 2010, Limewire was forced to shut down following a court order in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC but the Gnutella network remains active through open source clients like FrostWire and gtk-gnutella. Furthermore, multi-protocol file-sharing software such as MLDonkey and Shareaza adapted to support all the major file-sharing protocols, so users no longer had to install and configure multiple file-sharing programs.[citation needed]

On January 19, 2012, the United States Department of Justice shut down the popular domain of Megaupload (established 2005). The file sharing site has claimed to have over 50,000,000 people a day.[11] Kim Dotcom (formerly Kim Schmitz) was arrested with three associates in New Zealand on January 20, 2012 and is awaiting extradition.[12][13] The case involving the downfall of the world's largest and most popular file sharing site was not well received, with hacker group Anonymous bringing down several sites associated with the take-down.[11] In the following days, other file sharing sites began to cease services; FileSonic blocked public downloads on January 22,[14] with Fileserve following suit on January 23.[15]

In 2021 a European Citizens' Initiative "Freedom to Share" started collecting signatures in order to get the European Commission to discuss (and eventually make rules) on this subject, which is controversial.[16]

Techniques used for video sharing

[edit]

From the early 2000s until the mid 2010s, online video streaming was usually based on the Adobe Flash Player. After more and more vulnerabilities in Adobe's flash became known, YouTube switched to HTML5 based video playback in January 2015.[17]

Types

[edit]

Peer-to-peer file sharing

[edit]

Peer-to-peer file sharing is based on the peer-to-peer (P2P) application architecture. Shared files on the computers of other users are indexed on directory servers. P2P technology was used by popular services like Napster and LimeWire. The most popular protocol for P2P sharing is BitTorrent.

File sync and sharing services

[edit]
Screenshot of an open-source file-sharing software Shareaza

Cloud-based file syncing and sharing services implement automated file transfers by updating files from a dedicated sharing directory on each user's networked devices. Files placed in this folder also are typically accessible through a website and mobile app and can be easily shared with other users for viewing or collaboration. Such services have become popular via consumer-oriented file hosting services such as Dropbox and Google Drive. With the rising need of sharing big files online easily, new open access sharing platforms have appeared, adding even more services to their core business (cloud storage, multi-device synchronization, online collaboration), such as ShareFile, Tresorit, WeTransfer, or Hightail.

rsync is a more traditional program released in 1996 which synchronizes files on a direct machine-to-machine basis.

Data synchronization in general can use other approaches to share files, such as distributed file systems, version control, or mirrors.

Academic file sharing

[edit]

In addition to file sharing for the purposes of entertainment, academic file sharing has become a topic of increasing concern,[18][19][20] as it is deemed to be a violation of academic integrity at many schools.[18][19][21] Academic file sharing by companies such as Chegg and Course Hero has become a point of particular controversy in recent years.[22] This has led some institutions to provide explicit guidance to students and faculty regarding academic integrity expectations relating to academic file sharing.[23][24]

Public opinion of file sharing

[edit]

In 2004, there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing.[25] According to a CBS News poll in 2009, 58% of Americans who follow the file-sharing issue, considered it acceptable "if a person owns the music CD and shares it with a limited number of friends and acquaintances"; with 18- to 29-year-olds, this percentage reached as much as 70%.[26]

In his survey of file-sharing culture, Caraway (2012) noted that 74.4% of participants believed musicians should accept file sharing as a means for promotion and distribution.[27] This file-sharing culture was termed as cyber socialism, whose legalisation was not the expected cyber-utopia.[clarification needed].[28][29]

Economic impact

[edit]

According to David Glenn, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file-sharing hurts sales".[30] A literature review by Professor Peter Tschmuck found 22 independent studies on the effects of music file sharing. "Of these 22 studies, 14 – roughly two-thirds – conclude that unauthorized downloads have a 'negative or even highly negative impact' on recorded music sales. Three of the studies found no significant impact while the remaining five found a positive impact."[31][32]

A study by economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf in 2004 concluded that music file sharing's effect on sales was "statistically indistinguishable from zero".[33][34] This research was disputed by other economists, most notably Stan Liebowitz, who said Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had made multiple assumptions about the music industry "that are just not correct."[33][35] In June 2010, Billboard reported that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had "changed their minds", now finding "no more than 20% of the recent decline in sales is due to sharing".[36] However, citing Nielsen SoundScan as their source, the co-authors maintained that illegal downloading had not deterred people from being original. "In many creative industries, monetary incentives play a reduced role in motivating authors to remain creative. Data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file-sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. Since the advent of file sharing, the production of music, books, and movies has increased sharply."[37] Glenn Peoples of Billboard disputed the underlying data, saying "SoundScan's number for new releases in any given year represents new commercial titles, not necessarily new creative works."[38] The RIAA likewise responded that "new releases" and "new creative works" are two separate things. "[T]his figure includes re-releases, new compilations of existing songs, and new digital-only versions of catalog albums. SoundScan has also steadily increased the number of retailers (especially non-traditional retailers) in their sample over the years, better capturing the number of new releases brought to market. What Oberholzer and Strumpf found was better ability to track new album releases, not greater incentive to create them."[39]

A 2006 study prepared by Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz, published by Industry Canada, was "unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada".[40] The results of this survey were similarly criticized by academics and a subsequent revaluation of the same data by George R. Barker of the Australian National University reached the opposite conclusion.[41] "In total, 75% of P2P downloaders responded that if P2P were not available they would have purchased either through paid sites only (9%), CDs only (17%) or through CDs and pay sites (49%). Only 25% of people say they would not have bought the music if it were not available on P2P for free." Barker thus concludes; "This clearly suggests P2P network availability is reducing music demand of 75% of music downloaders which is quite contrary to Andersen and Frenz's much published claim."[42]

According to the 2017 paper "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" by the European Commission, illegal usage increases game sales, stating "The overall conclusion is that for games, illegal online transactions induce more legal transactions."[43]

Market dominance

[edit]

A paper in the journal Management Science found that file-sharing decreased the chance of survival for low ranked albums on music charts and increased exposure to albums that were ranked high on the music charts, allowing popular and well-known artists to remain on the music charts more often. This hurt new and less-known artists while promoting the work of already popular artists and celebrities.[44]

A more recent study that examined pre-release file-sharing of music albums, using BitTorrent software, also discovered positive impacts for "established and popular artists but not newer and smaller artists." According to Robert G. Hammond of North Carolina State University, an album that leaked one month early would see a modest increase in sales. "This increase in sales is small relative to other factors that have been found to affect album sales."

"File-sharing proponents commonly argue that file-sharing democratizes music consumption by 'levelling the playing field' for new/small artists relative to established/popular artists, by allowing artists to have their work heard by a wider audience, lessening the advantage held by established/popular artists in terms of promotional and other support. My results suggest that the opposite is happening, which is consistent with evidence on file-sharing behaviour."[45]

Billboard cautioned that this research looked only at the pre-release period and not continuous file sharing following a release date. "The problem in believing piracy helps sales is deciding where to draw the line between legal and illegal ... Implicit in the study is the fact that both buyers and sellers are required in order for pre-release file sharing to have a positive impact on album sales. Without iTunes, Amazon, and Best Buy, file-sharers would be just file sharers rather than purchasers. If you carry out the 'file-sharing should be legal' argument to its logical conclusion, today's retailers will be tomorrow's file-sharing services that integrate with their respective cloud storage services."[46]

Availability

[edit]

Many argue that file-sharing has forced the owners of entertainment content to make it more widely available legally through fees or advertising on-demand on the internet. In a 2011 report by Sandvine showed that Netflix traffic had come to surpass that of BitTorrent.[47]

[edit]
Main article: Legal aspects of file sharing

File sharing raises copyright issues and has led to many lawsuits. In the United States, some of these lawsuits have even reached the Supreme Court. For example, in MGM v. Grokster, the Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held liable if their software is marketed as a tool for copyright infringement.

On the other hand, not all file sharing is illegal. Content in the public domain can be freely shared. Even works covered by copyright can be shared under certain circumstances. For example, some artists, publishers, and record labels grant the public a license for unlimited distribution of certain works, sometimes with conditions, and they advocate free content and file sharing as a promotional tool.[48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Adner, Ron (March 5, 2012). "From Walkman to iPod: What Music Tech Teaches Us About Innovation". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 21, 2022. Retrieved October 12, 2021.
  2. ^ Elser, Amy (March 25, 2005). Reliable distributed systems: technologies, Web services, and applications - Kenneth P. Birman - Google Books. Springer. ISBN 9780387215099. Archived from the original on September 5, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2012 – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Menta, Richard (December 9, 1999). "RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013.
  4. ^ "EFF: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law". W2.eff.org. Archived from the original on January 15, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  5. ^ Woody, Todd (February 1, 2003). "The Race to Kill Kazaa". Wired.
  6. ^ Menta, Richard (October 3, 2001). "RIAA and MPAA sue Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaa". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved October 16, 2019.
  7. ^ Menta, Richard (July 20, 2001). "Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on March 28, 2012.
  8. ^ Dean, Katie (September 8, 2003). "RIAA Legal Landslide Begins". Wired. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
  9. ^ Röttgers, Janko (July 26, 2003). "Bittorrent-Webseiten unter Druck" [Bittorrent websites under pressure] (in German). heise online. Archived from the original on October 16, 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2019.
  10. ^ Motion Picture Association. "BELGIAN & SWISS AUTHORITIES BREAK RAZORBACK2: World's Largest P2P Facilitator Put Out of Illegal Business" (PDF). Motion Picture Association. Archived from the original on April 15, 2006. Retrieved January 5, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  11. ^ a b Mufson, Steven (January 20, 2012). "Department of Justice site hacked after Megaupload shutdown, Anonymous claims credit. Washington Post". Washingtonpost.com. Archived from the original on January 23, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
  12. ^ Schneider, Joe (January 24, 2012). "Megaupload's Dotcom in Custody as New Zealand Awaits Extradition Request, Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on January 27, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
  13. ^ Leask, Anna (January 23, 2012). "Dotcom in custody ahead of bail decision". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on March 13, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2018.
  14. ^ Musil, Steven. "FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests". CNET. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
  15. ^ Lanxon, Nate. "Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests". Wired. Condé Nast Britain. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
  16. ^ Ernesto Van der Sar (December 17, 2020). ""Freedom to Share" Launches EU Citizens' Initiative to Legalize File-Sharing". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on February 18, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2021.
  17. ^ McCormick, Rich (January 27, 2015). "YouTube drops Flash for HTML5 video as default". The Verge. Archived from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  18. ^ a b Rogerson, A.M. (2014). Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind. Semantic Scholar. S2CID 106581372.
  19. ^ a b Rogerson, A.M.; Basanta, G. (February 5, 2016). "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Academic Integrity in the Internet Age". Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer Nature. pp. 273–285. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55. ISBN 978-981-287-098-8. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  20. ^ Eaton, S.E. (July 12, 2020). "Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary". International Studies in Educational Administration. 48 (1). Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management: 80–85. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  21. ^ Butler, J. (April 15, 2020). "Arts & Sciences investigates Physics 192 academic integrity breach". Washington University Student Media, Inc. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  22. ^ McKenzie, L. (May 13, 2018). "Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  23. ^ "Information for Faculty: Note-sharing sites". Sheridan College. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  24. ^ "Copyright for Students". Sheridan College. July 30, 2023. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  25. ^ Delgado, Ray (March 17, 2004). "Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing". Stanford Report. Stanford University. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  26. ^ "Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK". CBS News. February 11, 2009. Archived from the original on November 30, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  27. ^ Caraway, Brett Robert (2012). "Survey of File-Sharing Culture". International Journal of Communication. USC Annenberg Press, Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2015.
  28. ^ Filby, Michael (2011). "Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulations for an Open Internet". Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. 6: 207. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
  29. ^ Filby, Michael (January 1, 2008). "Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons". International Journal of Private Law. 1 (1–2): 94–109. doi:10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435. ISSN 1753-6235. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
  30. ^ Glenn, David (July 17, 2008). "Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, D. C. Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved November 5, 2020.
  31. ^ Hart, Terry. More Evidence for Copyright Protection Archived February 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, copyhype.com, February 1, 2012. "The literature review looked at a 23rd study but did not classify it here since the author presented a mixed conclusion: the overall effect of unauthorized downloads is insignificant, but for unknown artists, there is a 'strongly negative' effect on recorded music sales."
  32. ^ AJ Sokolov, Daniel . Wissenschaftler: Studien über Tauschbörsen unbrauchbar Archived June 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, c't magazine, June 11, 2010.
  33. ^ a b Levine, Robert. Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, Bodley Head, February 2011, ISBN 1847921485.
  34. ^ Oberholzer, Felix; Koleman Strumpf. "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 13, 2008. Retrieved June 13, 2008.
  35. ^ Liebowitz, Stan J. (September 23, 2007). "How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?" (PDF). Intellectual Property: Copyright Law eJournal. ResearchGate GmbH. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1014399. Archived from the original on August 27, 2010. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
  36. ^ Peoples, Glenn. Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact Archived December 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. June 22, 2010.
  37. ^ Oberholzer & Strumpf. "File Sharing and Copyright" NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. "Artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form – many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars – suggesting a reduction in monetary incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic production."
  38. ^ Peoples, Glenn. Analysis: Are Musicians Losing the Incentive to Create? Archived November 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. July 26, 2010.
  39. ^ Friedlander, Joshua P. & Lamy, Jonathan. Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians Archived January 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine ifpi.org, July 19, 2010.
  40. ^ The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada Archived September 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz
  41. ^ Peoples, Glenn. A New Look at an Old Survey Finds P2P Hurts Music Purchases Archived February 6, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Billboard. February 2, 2012.
  42. ^ Barker, George R. Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs Archived February 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Social Science Research Network. January 23, 2012.
  43. ^ "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 20, 2018. Retrieved February 3, 2018.
  44. ^ Bhattacharjee, Sudip., Gopal, Ram D., Lertwachara, Kaveepan. Marsden, James R. & Telang, Rahul. The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts Archived February 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Management Science 2007.
  45. ^ Hammond. Robert G. "Profit Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry Archived May 23, 2012, at the Wayback Machine" May 2012. File sharing benefits mainstream albums such as pop music but not albums in niche genres such as indie music. ... Further, the finding that file sharing redistributes sales toward established/popular artists is inconsistent with claims made by proponents of file sharing that file-sharing democratizes music consumption."
  46. ^ Peoples, Glenn. Business Matters: Pre-release File Sharing Helps Album Sales, Says a Study. So Why Not Replicate This Legally? Archived May 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. May 22, 2012.
  47. ^ Global Internet Phenomena Report - Spring 2011 Archived January 13, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Sandvine Global Internet Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. May 12, 2011
  48. ^ Secure Federal File Sharing Act : Report (to Accompany H.r. 4098) (Including Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). United States. March 11, 2010. Archived from the original on September 20, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
  49. ^ Larrier, Travis (March 4, 2013). "Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)". The Shadow League. Archived from the original on July 20, 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2020.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File_sharing&oldid=1263881282"