Is Filesharing Ethical?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Actually, I think that the lesser known artists, especially the good ones, DO need the money. I am far more reluctant to grab a torrent from somebody new to the scene and virtually unknown than I am to a big act.

I would have no compunction whatsoever with grabbing The Beatles' back catalogue from a torrent - why should I care if Paul McCartney has more money to spend on divorce cases? But if I come across a great new band, even if I initially listen to their music on a torrent, I will make a point of buying a copy too (well, if I was working and had the money, I would!)

[AshtonBlack]

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/

Pretty much my thoughts

(Small addendum: : TV progs I can't get, ever, with my terrestrial digital. (Not allowed Sky TV in the flat. Virgin do not provide to this town.) or a film I would NOT have gone to see at the flicks and if it's REALLY great I'll buy the blueray.

[klr]

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.

Actually, I think that the lesser known artists, especially the good ones, DO need the money. I am far more reluctant to grab a torrent from somebody new to the scene and virtually unknown than I am to a big act.

I would have no compunction whatsoever with grabbing The Beatles' back catalogue from a torrent - why should I care if Paul McCartney has more money to spend on divorce cases? But if I come across a great new band, even if I initially listen to their music on a torrent, I will make a point of buying a copy too (well, if I was working and had the money, I would!)

WRT lesser known/niche artists: I know I will pay more (or pay more readily) for their work than I will for a mainstream artist.

As for the Fab Four: I have a lot of their work, bought legitimately at least once (in some cases more than once). For many years, there was a clear premium placed on their work, and you had to pay the top rate for them. As a result I refused to buy any of their albums. Thankfully, that too is now gone. I have no problem paying a fair price for their work given the quality, even if they don't "need" the money, and if much of the cover price is still going to other people.

It will be interesting to see what happens though when composer and/or performer royalties no longer need to be paid on popular works such as these.

[Animavore]

Yes

[Thinking Aloud]

All my stuff is free to listen to. (Link in sig.)

I've sold 2 CDs off the back of all those free listens. Which probably means no-one really likes my stuff.

But then I'm not really a recording artist trying to earn my living ... it's just for fun, and I'm happy for people to listen and enjoy.

[The Red Fox]

I've always thought of file sharing like the following. Say a friend buys a book, you see it and ask to borrow it. You read it cover to cover and get all the enjoyment out of it, but decide to keep it. Your friend doesn't mind. You haven't paid for your copy and the author gains no money from this. Is it stealing? I don't see Harper-Collins hunting down people who do this, so why is the RIAA doing the same in America and using the courts to bankrupt a few people with disproportionate fines? Greed. And not on behalf of musicians either.

I've had the misfortune to meet a couple of people in the music industry. No one major, but enough to know they care only about the bottom line. The real people robbing artists blind are the corporations themselves, and I have it on good authority from a lawyer that some of the contracts offered to new artists are ridiculous. Once you realise artists signed to major labels make next to no money on CD sales, it's easy to see why the corporations perpetuate the myth that "piracy" is stifling creativity and bankrupting musicians. They're as creative as they ever were, just spend some time at your local scene, but the constrictive and outdated methods of the industry giants prevent a diverse range of music getting through.

A different standard does apply to smaller, independent bands and I fully support them and pay for their music. Why? Because it's bloody awesome and better than anything Sony BMG shits outs these days. Oh, and indie (not the genre) bands don't charge through the nose for their music either. They deserve every penny for their hard work. If the industry wants people to stop taking copies of music they need to start getting more genres signed, pay artists a better cut and start offering much much cheaper and better deals on mp3s. They're just scared that they are finally losing their monopoly, and clinging onto outdated business models and court action in desperation.

Piracy? Bah. It might finally break up the corporate monopoly and bring some decent music back to the fore. The internet is probably the best thing to happen to music. With the ability to copy and get your music out there to a potential audience of millions, bands no longer rely on industry giants to get the word out. Far from stifling creativity, the internet could well encourage it onwards.

[redunderthebed]

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.

Indeed almost none of the bands i have discovered on the internet/via P2P would see the light of day on record industry approved channels of advertisement.

Internet is encouraging and growing music but not the multi-national corporations bottom line you see thats why they are taking mum's to court for downloading 24 songs.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Is it just me, or does anyone else keep seeing the thread's title as flesheating?

[klr]

Is it just me, or does anyone else keep seeing the thread's title as flesheating?

... er, no. Usually, I'm the one to misread thread titles, but not here.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Is it just me, or does anyone else keep seeing the thread's title as flesheating?

You must be lysdexic.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Is it just me, or does anyone else keep seeing the thread's title as flesheating?

You must be lysdexic.

WHAT!!11!! That as well as dylsecix? I am double-doomed!!

[Lozzer]

[Feck]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

[leo-rcc]

Is filesharing ethical? That depends on what you share.

[RPizzle]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

This serves as a good jumping off point.

I pondered this issue for some time, and have decided that file sharing is pretty textbook theft. In fact, I don't quite understand how anyone can rationalize ethical file sharing. Saying that any company is 'evil' and takes advantage of the consumer is a simple Ad hominem, which has nothing to do with the act itself. I'm sorry, but owning music or Windows version is not a right. Also, because of this logic, every person who writes an Ebook or releases their own album is just as liable to lose all that effort from file sharing. If someone can logically rationalize selective file sharing, only considering rich/bad people, then by all means. It's not quite Robin Hood...stealing from the rich to give to one's self, and the now and again random person who released a quality song/app on his own. Justifying stealing simply because they are rich or bad isn't good enough. No one is forced to buy their products.

I file share because I don't really care. I however, know and admit its pure theft of someone else's stuff.