Ethics of file sharing
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2007) |
 | This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (December 2007) |
Ethics of file sharing is a subfield of ethics specifically relating to the ethical implications of file sharing over computer networks and the Internet.
File sharing occurs when people who are connected to the Internet use file-sharing programs to copy files between each other. The ethical issues come mostly from the concern that practitioners of file sharing may infringe copyright laws. This can happen if the content of a file being shared is covered by such laws.
Types of file sharing
There are many options for sharing files on the internet. One of the most popular is peer-to-peer networks, or P2P networks. Some of the most popular networks are FastTrack, Gnutella, and eDonkey network. With these networks, the user downloads a program to their computer that allows them to connect to the network. Then with this program the user can search the shared media on other users’ computers and download this media from them across the Internet. These networks allow the sharing of any type of digital content, including songs, DVD-quality movies, computer programs and video games.
One of the most popular ways to get very large files like movies, computer applications, and video games is to use BitTorrent, another type of peer-to-peer network. With BitTorrent large media files are broken down into smaller chunks, which are then transferred to the user (or peer) depending on the fastest possible connection to the missing piece; all of this is done while the user is uploading the pieces it already has to other users. While this type of file sharing is most popular and useful for large movies and games, it can also be used for music, but usually users download music by the album or artist instead of a couple of songs.
Legality of file sharing
The debate over whether file sharing is legal or moral has sparked many lawsuits. In the United States, some of these lawsuits have even reached the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster[1].
In 2004 there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing [2]. With that many people sharing files online it is virtually impossible for any government to track them down one by one and prosecute them. It is often the case that only file sharers uploading large quantities of illegal files will be prosecuted by authorities, if they can be located at all. However, there are so many different P2P networks that it would be very hard to stop them all. Besides, P2P networks are not the only way to share files. Fifty-eight percent of Americans who follow the file sharing issue consider it acceptable in at least some circumstances [1]. According to a CBS News poll, nearly 70% of 18 to 29 year olds think that file sharing is okay in some circumstances [2].
In 2001 the recording industries won a legal victory against Napster and in their fight against peer-to-peer networks. In 2005 the United States Supreme Court heard a case between MGM and Grokster, a P2P network. The Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held responsible if the intent of their program is clearly to infringe on copyright laws. There are more cases pending against other peer-to-peer networks, such as Kazaa. The legal downfall of P2P networks could put a major hole in internet file sharing, without them files can not cross to other people.
File sharing is not necessarily illegal, even if the works being shared are covered by copyright. For example, some artists may choose to support freeware, shareware, open source, or anti-copyright, and advocate the use of file sharing as a free promotional tool. Nearly all shareware, freeware, and open source software may be shared as much as the end user wishes, depending on the End User Disclaimer for that specific piece of software. Other non-software related intellectual property may be shared legally in any way the end user desires. Content in the public domain can also freely be shared.
Other artists believe that mass sharing of their creative products cheats them out of the monetary incentive to publish their work. When people share files, one song that someone shares can be downloaded by another person and shared by them, then two copies can be shared and the process repeats to effectively create thousands of digital copies of a song from the one original file. The musician, director, or game designer must copyright his or her creative product in order to maintain the exclusive right to profit from his or her product.
File sharing advocates
Some advocates also argue that file sharing doesn't hurt people financially. Pollock summarizes several studies on this.
Another pro-file sharing argument is that movie, game, and other types of media are not seeing any drop in sales; but a rise. P2P file sharing is only one of many factors attributed to the recent drop in CD sales. Pollock explains this in-depth.
In the case of music, another argument is the alleged overpricing of CDs. Many consumers feel that CDs are far too expensive relative to decreasing costs of production. Consumers who only want one or two songs that have not been released as singles believe they should not have to pay the entire cost of a CD.
Despite criticism of such an event occurring, recorders charging more for their albums seems very unlikely due to the record labels already trying to make maximum profit. If they were to up prices this would deter sales, ultimately hurting the record companies.
Some file sharers argue that the companies whose intellectual property is being copied are large and generate high profits, and can thus afford the possible loss in profits.
Other advocates of file sharing believe that file sharing does not affect artists' profits and only benefits the distribution company. Many advocates adamantly believe that access to music and films is, by its intrinsic cultural value, a right that should not be subject to distributor's oligopoly.
A further argument in favour of file sharing is that not all of its users would buy all of the material that they download. In other words, one illegal download will not immediately translate to one lost sale, as many anti-piracy groups maintain. No study has yet been done to ascertain the proportion of users that would buy any of the material they download, if downloading were not available, and there is no currently available method to determine the number of sales that are represented by a given number of downloads.
Significant cultural sources for arguments against copyright include the Free Software culture [3], anarchism, the pirate and warez cultures, libertarian and civil libertarian groups [4], and academic work in economics and ethics. From these various cultures come a rich variety of perspectives, ranging in extremes from libertarian views that are based on natural rights, and deny that "employment of artists" or other utilitarian arguments for copyright have meaning [5] [6], to scholars such as Rasmus Fleischer who argues that Web 2.0 has changed society so significantly that personal behavior and business models simply make copyright law irrelevant (see Anti-copyright).
See also
- Disk sharing
- File sharing timeline
- File-sharing program
- Open Music Model
- File sharing in Canada
- Warez
Notes
- ^ MGM v. Grokster
- ^ Delgado, Ray. Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing. Stanford Report, March 17, 2004.