"File Sharing": Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » "File Sharing" » "File Sharing"

"File Sharing"
Ye or ne

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"File Sharing"

coalclear
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 28

Posted 06/14/09 - 02:46 PM: Subject: "File Sharing"	#1
Definitely trying to go beyond the scope of what is legally 'wrong' or 'right'. What are your thoughts on torrents and file sharing? Is it ULTIMATELY more or less lucrative/beneficial/"good" for the artists'? For the listeners? Is the software/music/film/etc industry about to experience a revolution? Is it 'wrong' to 'share' artists creations on a massive internet fueled scale? Is the more accessible (i.e. free) nature of these shared entities better for humanity? Discuss
"Submerge yourself into what you love so much that it becomes you." "The universe surrenders to your thoughts of it, that, is the ultimate power."

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/14/09 - 02:51 PM:	#2
If the artists haven't the power to protect their creations from piracy then all who have the power to exploit this weakness are justified in doing so.

Maxvilly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 209

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 06/14/09 - 03:09 PM:	#3
No way are we rightfully free to download other pe9ples work, ebooks, cds, dvds, games. Crackers, no way, I don't agree and never will. I can rob a bank right now. Everybody that haven't their gun in their handbags can I rightfully rob inside of an bank. I'm better to rob the bank but that don't hold up with a logical sense as "exploit this weakness" as you statement said, it's just biased logical noise. It's like, "I took your cake, and I will never give it back" - I feel it's not for the better of a society to create this "free mentality" beast - it seems entertainment are of becoming more important than meeting up with friends, family - have a good dinner and do things together, like talk, take a walk on the beach, play pool, just think about it guys? - and of course.. just interact with REAl human ...grr friends. Huh? It could have been put on halt 10 years ago, Now everybody are used to steal their entertainment. The earliest generations have now been grown up to feel comfortable to steal things to get ahead. What messages do this send out over us adults as parents, to become rolemodels? It's almost as kids have the prevelige to rule in a household beyond their parents. And it's sad that few sees these viruses that are kept in the "free mentality" Fileshare agenda. Edited by Maxvilly on 06/14/09 - 03:20 PM
I had details here, ones.

The Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 19

Posted 06/14/09 - 05:40 PM:	#4
I feel that while it is not the most correct thing to do, it will not stop people from doing it if they can get away with it. As Thomas Babington Macaulay says: "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out." Immoral in my opinion - yes Does it prevent people from doing it - evidently not

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 06/14/09 - 06:32 PM:	#5
Everything should be free. Maxvilly, people like you are the reason for the inequalities in the world.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Xuser
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009
Location: New Mexico

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 48

Posted 06/14/09 - 06:38 PM:	#6
I have been thinking about this lately, actually. The question that I am stuck on is what percent of the population that pirates music/movies/etc could actually afford to buy such things in the first place? If the majority of the people who pirate are those who truly would have to choose between buying a CD or DVD and buying groceries then what would that say about the nature of media sharing? In my opinion, it means that media sharing is a kind of spreading of the wealth. When you download media "illegally" you are giving yourself a luxury that is not supposed to be available to someone at your income level (assuming you as a lower income class). So you take it, steal it, and in some sense you could justify yourself by claiming that the artists are making tons of money, so you are not really hurting them. But, the same logic would not apply if you went up to a luxury clothes store and started stealing the clothes. Again you would not be directly affecting the wealthy store owners, but the consequences would be strict, assuming you were caught. Still, I think there is a big difference from material property and artistic/intellectual property. The root of this problem lies in the this, IMO. It is in the difference between open source/closed source software , free/non-free education. The supposed ethical issues are merely abstractions to defer our thought from the actual question.
If I sound dramatic, it probably means I am really passionate about it; but still willing to joke about it.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/14/09 - 10:13 PM:	#7
File sharing isn't stealing in the traditional sense. If someone makes 10 CDs, sells one, then the contents of that CD are shared, they didn't lose a single CD. There is no loss to property. What they are really complaining about is loss of sales. The idea that the people who downloaded, if they didn't have that option would have gone out and bought one of the CDs. But actually, people who engage in file sharing aren't really getting their content for "free". They are usually paying for internet connections, (on both sides), distribution and managing web access, (making them searchable), at no cost to the artists or manufacturers. It is really an issue of supply and demand. The higher the cost of the original, the more justifiable the "discounted" cost of the copy. Lower the price and distribution enough and the attraction of file sharing diminishes. Those complaining the most are the big corporate manufacturers who hide their entire development and marketing costs behind the name "artists", while the actual artists get far less, probably less than what was spent by the combined file sharing network. A few brave artists have explored alternative distribution schemes. The can distribute their works online for less and earn more, often, than through normal distribution channels, even when the files are shared occasionally. I subscribe to a few channels which distribute content that I like for a reasonable low fee. I think the business models are still going through a growth phase. The older distribution systems are trying to maintain competitive advantage, essence, against the artist distributing directly, to maintain what eventually amounts to no added value. I work in software. I've been part of big corporations that distribute their software with no copy protection whatsoever. You could install it and use it anywhere. Their bottom line is protected by license and services. Most of our big corporate and government customers can't afford system failure, and needs high-quality support, so they pay for licensed and supported software. I was just mentioning to someone today that it was ironic that the only country we couldn't distribute unlocked software too was China -- and that was due to a legal restriction placed on software by the US government on software distributed to China. I work in open source, too. Open source is extremely popular and free for download. The people who work in it get their benefit back from being able to use the technology as well, plus free development, free user-testing, free translation, free documentation, etc, which is the equivalent of additional income in the software industry. Again, companies make money from support and services, or other business plans. So, I don't consider "file sharing" to be wrong in the sense of stealing. I'm old enough to remember a time when people often recorded their favorite song off the radio, (or concerts), onto cassette tapes and made copies for their friends. It was a form of advertising, the reason it was put onto the radio in the first place. I would say there it is somewhere in a grey area to share content with friends.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 06/14/09 - 11:08 PM:	#8
Well the question is simple, "should artists get pay for their work"? If your answer to that is yes, you can either say 1. Those who participate in file sharing are immoral, or 2. The entertainment industries need to change their business model to match the current environment. I fail to see why such change is inherently a bad thing.
Keep it simple.

coalclear
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 28

Posted 06/14/09 - 11:41 PM:	#9
123savethewhales wrote: Well the question is simple, "should artists get pay for their work"? If your answer to that is yes, you can either say 1. Those who participate in file sharing are immoral, or 2. The entertainment industries need to change their business model to match the current environment. I fail to see why such change is inherently a bad thing. This is what Ive been thinking as well, but it appears as if those industries are either a) too stupid to realize a change, or b) too stubborn. Because God knows they've been putting up a fuss over how much money they're losing. Perhaps the answer is c) they know they've got no place in the future and they're simply just holding on for dear life..
"Submerge yourself into what you love so much that it becomes you." "The universe surrenders to your thoughts of it, that, is the ultimate power."

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 06/15/09 - 11:40 AM:	#10
I don't give a #$!! about the transfer of money aspect. The availabiity of what I want is a larger issue. They have reduced some of the problems; by allowing you to download individual tracks. Yet a good 8 hour playlist is still past the 200$ range. Take into account that you'll likely make at least 1 of these playlists a month; that's 2400$ a year that they expect to acquire from my pocket. I have a 35,000$ income. Not alot for Calgary, I know. But living at a bare minimum; you can have approx 9500$ to spare. Add savings of 10% of my gross income; and I've got 6 grand. The record companies expect a whopping 40% of my disposable income! Oh, all right, maybe I'll listen to music on the radio. Hmm... Damm CRTC. For every song, there is X amount of talking. So maybe 1/4 of the radio is used in talk time. For crap I don't even give a damm about. And then they have the audaciousness to replay the same song list 4 times a day! And that's during the 'normal' 16 hour range that most people are awake. I wanted to listen to music.... Not a 20$ track list.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.