Is Filesharing Ethical?

[Transgirlofnofaith]

A recent thread here had got me thinking. What are the ethics of using filesharing programs to download things for free? Please share your opinions. As for what I think, I don't equate it to physical stealing, but I think that it is wrong to make a profit off of others' work. For example, I think it is somewhat okay to download an album for free, but if you then copy the album along with its artwork and sell it to someone for more than the expense of what it costs for making it, then you should be prosecuted. I think many arguments can be made for the defensibility of it, but I would need moar tea before my thinking is up to writing them down.

[Feck]

No it is probably not, it is theft .

[Transgirlofnofaith]

No it is probably not, it is theft .

Thanks for the detailed argument. You should be a lawyer.

[AshtonBlack]

Damn, me need to work. I will expound my thoughts soon. Overall, I agree to some extent with MoNF.

[Feck]

No it is probably not, it is theft .

Thanks for the detailed argument. You should be a lawyer.

Sorry my heart is not in an arguement that makes me look like a complete hypocrite

[klr]

A recent thread here had got me thinking. What are the ethics of using filesharing programs to download things for free? Please share your opinions. As for what I think, I don't equate it to physical stealing, but I think that it is wrong to make a profit off of others' work. For example, I think it is somewhat okay to download an album for free, but if you then copy the album along with its artwork and sell it to someone for more than the expense of what it costs for making it, then you should be prosecuted. I think many arguments can be made for the defensibility of it, but I would need moar tea before my thinking is up to writing them down.

I think you need to expand on the thinking behind the bit that I've bolded. Why would someone bother to invest time and effort in producing something, if no-one is obliged to pay for it?

The short answer to the question you posed is that while it may well be illegal in many (but not all) scenarios - render unto Caesar and all that) - whether or not it is ethical is a much more complex issue.

A simple example: If I paid good money to buy an album on cassette or vinyl, should I then be expected to pay out again to buy it on CD and/or in MP3 format?

[Transgirlofnofaith]

A recent thread here had got me thinking. What are the ethics of using filesharing programs to download things for free? Please share your opinions. As for what I think, I don't equate it to physical stealing, but I think that it is wrong to make a profit off of others' work. For example, I think it is somewhat okay to download an album for free, but if you then copy the album along with its artwork and sell it to someone for more than the expense of what it costs for making it, then you should be prosecuted. I think many arguments can be made for the defensibility of it, but I would need moar tea before my thinking is up to writing them down.

I think you need to expand on the thinking behind the bit that I've bolded. Why would someone bother to invest time and effort in producing something, if no-one is obliged to pay for it?

The short answer to the question you posed is that while it may well be illegal in many (but not all) scenarios - render unto Caesar and all that) - whether or not it is ethical is a much more complex issue.

A simple example: If I paid good money to buy an album on cassette or vinyl, should I then be expected to pay out again to buy it on CD and/or in MP3 format?

I will go into more detail, but like I said before, my brain function isn't currently up to it and I NEED MOAR TEA before I can. But if you want to add your views or make an argument of your own, feel free.

[Feck]

A recent thread here had got me thinking. What are the ethics of using filesharing programs to download things for free? Please share your opinions. As for what I think, I don't equate it to physical stealing, but I think that it is wrong to make a profit off of others' work. For example, I think it is somewhat okay to download an album for free, but if you then copy the album along with its artwork and sell it to someone for more than the expense of what it costs for making it, then you should be prosecuted. I think many arguments can be made for the defensibility of it, but I would need moar tea before my thinking is up to writing them down.

I think you need to expand on the thinking behind the bit that I've bolded. Why would someone bother to invest time and effort in producing something, if no-one is obliged to pay for it?

The short answer to the question you posed is that while it may well be illegal in many (but not all) scenarios - render unto Caesar and all that) - whether or not it is ethical is a much more complex issue.

A simple example: If I paid good money to buy an album on cassette or vinyl, should I then be expected to pay out again to buy it on CD and/or in MP3 format?

Not on MP3 because the physical media has no cost ,you have already paid for the music/film ,and for a CD/dvd only for the physical cost of the media .

[redunderthebed]

It depends on how you do it i believe.If you download an album/DVD make a 100 copies and sell it at a flea market or whatever thats wrong, you are literally taking money away from people who should be recieving the money (that happens anyway with record companies and middleman but yeah..).However if you use it for personal use and maybe a copy to a mate in exchange for a blank cd i see no problem and is no different from someone sitting there with a guitar and playing a song for you except 21st centurylised.

All the companies that claim to be defending the artists interests especially the multi-national corporations aren't they are defending there bottom line no more no less. They steal more money off the artist than any "pirate" like myself ever could.Universal and other successful record labels have made there money by controlled the means of which you and i listen to music and are shit scared of any technological advance for fear of losing it and have opposed every single one of them since year dot (They tried to shut down music on the radio until a royalties scheme was agreed to and they even opposed those little listening booths you have at cd shops ffs)

Thats why they are jumping up and down about file sharing you and i control it we control what gets out there we control what we can download and anyone with a computer and a decent internet connection can access it and they don't make a cent out of it. It's bringing back the music to the people and out of the hands of corporations that have got fat and rich and don't give a flying fuck is lady gaga is a pile of shite and a complete skank so long as it makes them craploads of money.

Also don't believe that it hurts artists it doesn't i mean only the artists of which made there money by the traditional channels are worried.If they fall over it will just give new opportunities to others and most likely get the music back in the hands of the artists not their "employers".

/rant over

[Pappa]

I'd say no, it's not ethical, for the reasons klr outlined. But there are two exceptions I make in my personal downloading ethics.

1) I don't mind downloading music that I wouldn't have bought anyway and if I download something I really do like, I try to buy a copy of it on CD or at least pay for some more music by the same artist(s).

2) I find that companies charging £800 for a bit of software is more unethical than me downloading it for free, so I download it anyway.

With regards to software, I usually try to find an open source alternative too. That's why the magazine was produced on Scribus. I found it via this great site:

http://www.osalt.com/

[klr]

A recent thread here had got me thinking. What are the ethics of using filesharing programs to download things for free? Please share your opinions. As for what I think, I don't equate it to physical stealing, but I think that it is wrong to make a profit off of others' work. For example, I think it is somewhat okay to download an album for free, but if you then copy the album along with its artwork and sell it to someone for more than the expense of what it costs for making it, then you should be prosecuted. I think many arguments can be made for the defensibility of it, but I would need moar tea before my thinking is up to writing them down.

I think you need to expand on the thinking behind the bit that I've bolded. Why would someone bother to invest time and effort in producing something, if no-one is obliged to pay for it?

The short answer to the question you posed is that while it may well be illegal in many (but not all) scenarios - render unto Caesar and all that) - whether or not it is ethical is a much more complex issue.

A simple example: If I paid good money to buy an album on cassette or vinyl, should I then be expected to pay out again to buy it on CD and/or in MP3 format?

I will go into more detail, but like I said before, my brain function isn't currently up to it and I NEED MOAR TEA before I can. But if you want to add your views or make an argument of your own, feel free.

Bottom line: If you receive and use something (goods or services, virtual or real), without ever paying for it in any way (directly or indirectly), then the producer will eventually get the message and stop. Just because you can download something for free with no marginal cost to the original producer doesn't make it more viable in the long run - never mind more ethical. As a programmer, I produce intellectual output, and I expect to get paid for it. I wouldn't do it otherwise. Why should an artist, or anyone else involved in producing and distributing their work, be expected to think or behave any differently?

That said, there are particular issues with the entertainment industry, as outlined by Mr. Bouquet just now. However, even these are not enough to make me go out and download product for free without any further thought. But there are circumstances ...

I'd say no, it's not ethical, for the reasons klr outlined. But there are two exceptions I make in my personal downloading ethics.

1) I don't mind downloading music that I wouldn't have bought anyway and if I download something I really do like, I try to buy a copy of it on CD or at least pay for some more music by the same artist(s).

By my own reckoning, I have had to buy about 100 albums on CD that I already had on cassette. The recording industry might well argue that I was getting something extra, which would be true. But should I really have to pay for a full product again? Shouldn't I have been at least able to turn in my cassettes and get a hefty discount when buying the same work on CD? The cost of converting an album to (digital) CD format is normally marginal after all.

Naturally, if I can get an MP3 copy (for free) of an album that I already have on cassette, then I'll usually take it, thank you very much.

Then there is the cynical recycling of past work, often designed to get people to buy a full album when all they really want are a few new tracks. The (legal) download industry has thrown a huge spanner in that at least, since people can now in theory pick and choose specific tracks.

Then there is the whole 'fair use' issue. If I surreptitiously get a copy of an album (or maybe just one track), I will listen to it. If I like it, I will then try and get a legit copy, or buy some other work by the same act (as with Pappa). I am buying as many albums now as I have ever done in the past, even though I don't really need to from my own selfish perspective. Of course, the fact that the music industry has been forced to slash prices in recent years helps as well. But when prices were much higher, I not only declined to pay top dollar (I usually went for lower-priced works), but also to get music by the "back door".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There are a lot of things that are unethical about the entertainment industry, and always have been.

If it were merely a case of 'taking money away from the artists' then I would immediately say that file sharing is 'wrong'. But we all know that the situation is more complex than that.

Let's look at some of the 'legal' (but hardly ethical) things that have been happening in the entertainment industry for years:

• A new format (CD/DVD) is developed which is far higher in quality and also far cheaper to manufacture than an existing format (cassette tape/VHS) yet the price of this new format is kept artificially high with no government sanctions imposed despite blatant, anti-competitive cartels being established. And now, with digital files becoming the preferred medium for both music and video, the cost per unit is negligible - yet they still expect to sell these products at a similar price to that charged for difficult to make, physical products! Cheaper costs + same price = more profit.
• Identical products are licensed to different companies in different regions of the world with separate release dates and pricing structures. Again, this is anti-competitive and anti free-trade.
• 'Deluxe Editions' of products are released that are virtually identical to those that fans have already bought with the addition of one or two additions that are otherwise unobtainable.
• DRM coding is included in purchased MP3's despite the hard-fought, legal right of consumers to make copies of music that they own 'for personal use'. (Legislation that was vehemently opposed by record companies for years - they even wanted to be paid a levy on blank cassette tapes and came close to having this passed in some countries!)
• Music / films that have yet to be officially released in a digital format due to legal wranglings by various claimants over the 'rights' to do so.

I could continue. I am all for supporting artists but not for supporting faceless, multinational companies which dictate to us what we should listen to based upon a balance sheet rather than an EQ balance!

The fact is that the old record / film company monopolies are over. We live in a digital age where information can be copied with 100% accuracy over and over again. If these companies want to keep selling us a physical product, they need to offer more for less - it is basic economics. They can't compete with Pirate Bay on price, so need to offer something that such sites can't offer. They need to adopt a new business model, find new ways of realising profit from their investment. We are already seeing that to an extent in the price-hikes for live concerts. It used to be the case that a world tour to promote an album lost money which was recouped in record sales - not any more. People want to see artists performing live and will pay for that.

Why should I pay the same for a few 1's and 0's as I used to for an LP in a fancy sleeve with artwork, when it costs nothing to make? If the cost of digital music was dropped low enough, people would pay. All the greed of companies has done is to push their customers into the arms of free pirate sites - and are those customers likely to come flooding back any time soon? Is the threat of making half the world criminals likely to stop piracy? per-leeeasse!

There is nothing wrong with a record / film company making a profit. Profit is what the whole world's economy is based on. It keeps people in jobs, maintains investment in new artists, funds investment into such things as special effects, new product formats, etc. What is wrong is seeking to maintain artificially high profits while exhibiting a blatant disregard for the realities of the marketplace.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

There are a lot of things that are unethical about the entertainment industry, and always have been.

If it were merely a case of 'taking money away from the artists' then I would immediately say that file sharing is 'wrong'. But we all know that the situation is more complex than that.

Let's look at some of the 'legal' (but hardly ethical) things that have been happening in the entertainment industry for years:

• A new format (CD/DVD) is developed which is far higher in quality and also far cheaper to manufacture than an existing format (cassette tape/VHS) yet the price of this new format is kept artificially high with no government sanctions imposed despite blatant, anti-competitive cartels being established. And now, with digital files becoming the preferred medium for both music and video, the cost per unit is negligible - yet they still expect to sell these products at a similar price to that charged for difficult to make, physical products! Cheaper costs + same price = more profit.
• Identical products are licensed to different companies in different regions of the world with separate release dates and pricing structures. Again, this is anti-competitive and anti free-trade.
• 'Deluxe Editions' of products are released that are virtually identical to those that fans have already bought with the addition of one or two additions that are otherwise unobtainable.
• DRM coding is included in purchased MP3's despite the hard-fought, legal right of consumers to make copies of music that they own 'for personal use'. (Legislation that was vehemently opposed by record companies for years - they even wanted to be paid a levy on blank cassette tapes and came close to having this passed in some countries!)
• Music / films that have yet to be officially released in a digital format due to legal wranglings by various claimants over the 'rights' to do so.

I could continue. I am all for supporting artists but not for supporting faceless, multinational companies which dictate to us what we should listen to based upon a balance sheet rather than an EQ balance!

The fact is that the old record / film company monopolies are over. We live in a digital age where information can be copied with 100% accuracy over and over again. If these companies want to keep selling us a physical product, they need to offer more for less - it is basic economics. They can't compete with Pirate Bay on price, so need to offer something that such sites can't offer. They need to adopt a new business model, find new ways of realising profit from their investment. We are already seeing that to an extent in the price-hikes for live concerts. It used to be the case that a world tour to promote an album lost money which was recouped in record sales - not any more. People want to see artists performing live and will pay for that.

Why should I pay the same for a few 1's and 0's as I used to for an LP in a fancy sleeve with artwork, when it costs nothing to make? If the cost of digital music was dropped low enough, people would pay. All the greed of companies has done is to push their customers into the arms of free pirate sites - and are those customers likely to come flooding back any time soon? Is the threat of making half the world criminals likely to stop piracy? per-leeeasse!

There is nothing wrong with a record / film company making a profit. Profit is what the whole world's economy is based on. It keeps people in jobs, maintains investment in new artists, funds investment into such things as special effects, new product formats, etc. What is wrong is seeking to maintain artificially high profits while exhibiting a blatant disregard for the realities of the marketplace.

Fuckin' A, XC. Couldn't have put it better myself. And great responses too, Mr. Bouquet and klr.

[Kristie]

I agree 100% with XC.
It's not like the big artists need more money anyway, and the lesser-known artists should be happy that their music is being listened to. It's kinda like advertising.

[Chinaski]

As a musician I'd be annoyed if music I produced were only available through store purchased CDs.