File sharing 2.0: morals and legality

March 14, 2006
File sharing 2.0: morals and legality
Ryan Hayes
Staff Writer

Imagine yourself at Target, browsing the new CD releases. You find that new CD you have wanted for weeks, so you buy it.

You do not even consider stealing it because you know it is wrong. Now, instead of going to a store, imagine you are sitting in your room at your computer. You find a website that has that same CD that you want, but it is now free. You decide to download it. Congratulations, you have just broken the law!

File sharing can involve downloading any type of information, including music, movies, and games. Music files however, are the most common files to share because they are the smallest in size and can be downloaded the quickest. Larger files being downloaded can slow down internet servers.
Illegally downloading copyrighted music is the same thing as stealing, and carries strict penalties: $250,000 fines and up to five years in prison. People assume that since downloading a CD over the internet is done alone, that means there is no way they can get caught.

This, however, this is an incorrect assumption; computers have specific ID’s for sending and receiving data. In fact, the record industry can trace the file being downloaded back to the source.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the main opponent to file sharing. The RIAA states that, “Sharing unauthorized copyrighted works is considered direct infringement.”

Simply put, this means anyone who downloads free music is breaking the law. The heavy fines and jail time put into place by the RIAA and the courts are used to scare away would-be music swappers.

The RIAA hopes to direct all internet music traffic to websites such as Apple’s iTunes, Rhapsody.com, MusicNet.com, and the new Napster for legal music downloads.

Websites including Redlightglow.com and glassdanse.com are the RIAA’s main concerns; sites such as these are constantly being discovered and shut down with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998.

File sharing and the music industry

The music industry feels the effects of file sharing the most. According to the industry, there are two positions to take: pro or con. Pro involves all the up-and-coming bands that have not had significant exposure yet; file sharing gets their name out to the public. Con involves well known bands; file sharing for them has potential to hurt record sales.

According to Nick Hentges, freelance music producer of Lagoon Productions in Mound and Minneapolis, “File sharing is devaluing entertainment, but it can also be a powerful marketing tool.”

His theory is that the focus on file sharing hurts record sales, which hurts the smaller bands getting booked to larger tours with bigger headlining names. This decrease in record sales also hurts revenue streams because the label will not realize these smaller bands are an asset for the company.

The alternative view of Hentges’s theory is that file sharing is a powerful marketing tool that can be used to get bands world-wide exposure without doing much work.

For example, at the Institute of Production and Recording in Minneapolis, a student had his material available on the internet for downloading. It became the craze in Brazil, and he was flown there to play a week of sold-out shows. The material was number four on Brazil’s radio charts, all because of file sharing.

Still, there are people in the industry who take a clearer stance on file sharing. Who could forget the band Metallica, who constantly speak out against file sharing and believe it is ruining the industry?

In the opposite camp there is relative newcomer, Keaton Simons, who has a full album available for free on Purevolume.com.

The “Grey Area” of file sharing

There are certain websites out there that promote free file sharing. For instance, MySpace.com, PureVolume.com, and other websites have material that is allowed to be shared. This is where the file sharing argument gets confusing.

Bands on these sites can personally post songs for play and download, with some bands even posting complete CDs that are also available for sale in stores. Is it morally wrong to download the CD instead of buying it?

The answer is no because the band and only the band posted the material for downloading. Bands consider this type of file sharing a good way to promote themselves.

This promotion can go as far as to get bands signed to record deals. The band Panic! at the Disco, originally from Las Vegas, gained so much popularity on MySpace.com that they were signed by Fueled By Ramen Records. This spring they are performing on tour with consistently sold out shows.

Public opinion

To the public, file sharing is an issue involving personal morals. Most people realize it is stealing, but they download regardless because they think they will not get caught. Millions of people partake in file sharing, so the odds of being caught are low, but if someone does get caught, the penalties are extreme.

While some people download illegally, there are others who refuse to. These people may want to support the artist, or may want to have an original copy, or may simply be afraid of being caught.

Still, there are other people who just do not get involved with file sharing because they don’t know what it is.

Consider this year’s Oscars: host Jon Stewart said a quick joke about file sharing, telling parents to “Go upstairs and ask your children who the artists are that will be performing at the Oscars.” He implied that the parents did not know the bands, but their children would know, because they would be sitting at a computer illegally downloading music.

File sharing remains a controversial issue. However, several bands have demonstrated that it can be a money making machine. Despite their success, other artists have claimed that it has hurt the music industry.

Either way, the issue continues to be a relevant issue certain to be on the minds of artists everywhere for a long time to come.

"To the public, file sharing is an issue involving personal morals. Most people realize it is stealing, but they download regardless because they think they will not get caught. "

Wrong!! Most people don't necessarily view file-sharing as stealing. Most people who file-share do it because they don't view it as stealing!! It is not at all stealing!! It is called sharing information. AT its worst form, it is called copyright infringement, and it is very little or not wrong at all when it is done for free- non-commercial use.

Also, people who only download and don't share music can't get caught because there would be no legal way to find out what someone is downloaidng without illegally randomly tapping into someone's connection and sniffing on it. When you share files with others, someone can legally look at your open shared folder and find out what you are sharing and record your IP address. If you don't share, they can't do that legally.

Much of this article is pouted propoganda on behalf of the mafia organization known as the RIAA!!

"Much of this article is pouted propoganda on behalf of the mafia organization known as the RIAA!!"

...No, this article was "pouted" by an un-informed idiot.

(subtle distinction.)

First of all, I would not in my right mind steal a CD (or anything) from a store. I have too much going in my life to risk for a stupid stunt like that.

I have been actively downloading music for the past four years and I do not feel one ounce of guilt for those poor recording industry fucking fatasses lounging in their wood-grained offices, smoking their 25 dollar box of cigars, wearing their 500 or 600 dollar Armani suits, etc.

If I were to do it all over again, I would still be downloading music from the Internet, and I would continue to do it until I get what I am able to get and then some . . . and no recording industry fucking fatass is gonna stop me!

MAKE IT KNOWN!

"File sharing 2.0: morals and legality"

Yeah, more like "File sharing 2.0: morals and legality are indifferent to abrainwashed sap"

He talks about legalities and moralities, but he mixes them when they shouldn't be at all compared.

I tried to regester to comment, but apparently there is no commenting because the article was not signed up (bullshit)? If you can, e-mail them and know they were wrong in posting a uninformed article, and point out the corrections (in a kind way of course. ^_^)

Not only is Hayes an "un-informed idiot," his article reads like a 4th grade book report.

I agree that downloading copyright materials and passing them around freely to everyone is probably not such a good idea when alot of people's lively hoods depend on such items.....

However........

The entertainment industry (music/movie) are their own worst enemy. They are ones who with their wares have been training the masses to "Do what you want..and don't let anybody tell you what to do!".

You can't sell people sex, violence, rebellion, and all manner of negativity and expect them not to act accordingly. But yeah I know...that kind of thing sells and makes fat cats fatter...but it also does what it's doing now.

See, being a servant to morality isn't an issue as long as the people are buying it up...but boy ole....that "right and wrong" message sure is convenient when the cash flow starts wanning.

Listen RIAA and Hollywood...it's either one thing or the other. You can't preach two different messages you greedy and selfish bunch of hypocrites!

If you think this is such a problem....then don't teach the hand that feeds ya to bite ya! This lawsuit business...is submission by force....the only thing that comes from oppression is more rebellion.

"Simply put, this means anyone who downloads free music is breaking the law."

Simply put, this is bullshit.

"Jon Stewart said a quick joke about file sharing..."

The one I heard was actually about the movies. It had nothing to do with music. Something like, "These are the people you are stealing from. Look, some of them can barely afford enough silk to cover their breasts."

To his credit, some paragraphs have two sentences, which is better than what I've seen in major newspapers.

On the other hand, it came from a website that doesn't identify itself as affiliated with the college it apparently represents, being as it's on an edu server. I looked at a few articles, but couldn't even tell what state this came from, much less the actual name of the college.

Maybe it's supposed to be a secret.

The website for which this article is posted at, belongs to Hamline University out of St. Paul, Minnesota.

All you have to do is trace the web page is down to its root web address (www.hamline.edu).

of course on the other hand we have lots of idiots running everything from the gas station down the street to the government.

the scary thing to me is that people are so willing to fall in line and be good citizens and buy into the bullshit.

If you are into certain genres like trance, then you don't need to file-share to get music off the internet. There are a whole bunch of web sites where you can download mp3s of re-mix trance songs or entire compilations - directly from a web-site - without sharing anything yourself.

Do these electronic DJs violate copyright law by offering these songs on the web? Who knows? Maybe they have permission to offer the mp3 music, and maybe not. Do I violate copyright law if I download from such a site? According to the author of this article, maybe so. But that would seem quite absurd to me.

zxilton - Good points. I've never thought about that but they have been cramming those types of messages down our throats for years now!

I don't get the Jon Stewart "joke". “Go upstairs and ask your children who the artists are that will be performing at the Oscars.” How is that implying that they are downloading? All it implies to me is that the kids know who the artists are and the parents don't...nothing new there.

This article is LAME.

I tought downloading was at this point in time legal in th u.s.?

What about the morals of the RIAA, or is that because it represents major corp. they somehow have the right to do what the hell they want.?

First and most for all, when you make a statement about anything check all the facts, not simply join in the easy way.

"Illegally downloading copyrighted music is the same thing as stealing"

Last time I check our courts ruled otherwise, stating it was NOT the same as stealing, calling it by its proper name, Copyright Infringement. This moron needs to get his idiotic ideas straight. Damn RIAA propaganda bull.

I say we inite this guy to a debate here on Boycott-riaa.com... even though we all know who will lose this one. ^_^

I say we inite this guy to a debate here on Boycott-riaa.com... even though we all know who will lose this one.

come on. who we kidding. as soon as the guy made leflaw look like a jackass. Lawrence would go into his huckleberry bit robbing both himself and this webpage of any dignity. best the riaa just stay away. if for anything else but to avoided fits of laughter.

Hmm, I smell troll.
How many of our threads has the BollWeevil hit with disparaging remarks between 3 and 4 A.M. today?

See ...
Hate on for lef.
This site is worthless theme.
It's gadfly.

Imagine spending too much for a new CD at Target and then reading about the payola schemes and price-fixing amongst industry peers. Imagine realizing that if the music industry can throw money away sending DJs on vacations to the Bahamas, then they certainly don't need the money I would waste on the new cd that I won't listen to after 6 months anyway (and that the music industry doesn't want me to be able to resell the cd at that point when I don't listen to it anymore).

You do not consider stealing the cd from Target because it's too much of a hassle and that takes money away from red-shirted teenagers eagerly looking forward to becoming head cashiers at Target in five years. Then again, you don't consider buying a cd anyway because it is infected with DRM and the packaging is too difficult to get open.

As others have said, there's a difference, both actual and legal, between stealing and copyright infringement. There's also an actual and legal difference between downloading and file-sharing. Of course to the industry, it's all 'piracy,' even though that's another inaccurate term.

I love that the author specifically says, "The heavy fines and jail time put into place by the RIAA and the courts are used to scare away would-be music swappers." The RIAA is not a legislative or judicial organization. They are not legally able to impose fines or jail time as punishments. They're a business organization. Of course this sentence points out the truth, although I don't think the author intended to reference the fact that the RIAA buys politicians and pays for the passage of laws.

"The RIAA hopes to direct all internet music traffic to websites such as Apple�s iTunes, Rhapsody.com, MusicNet.com, and the new Napster for legal music downloads," where they hope to price fix online just as they have in stores, by their own admission.

And the DOJ is remiss if it doesn't prosecute them vigorously for their price-fixing.

OldCodger,

The DOJ will do the usual dance, slap them on the wrists and say what bad boys they have been.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Listen you retards,
first of all..this article isn't talking about hurting the "industry" by methods of p2p...it's about having respect for the artists you so called music lovers support. It's having respect for how much we value our entertainment. Who cares if the corporate machines get shut down, but if artists decide that it is not worth their time to put effort in mass media promotion and distribution of their musical art...all you sorry asses will be at home listening to books on tape. Lets fight for what the artists we love do, and the best way we can support art is by keeping it alive...and money unfortunately is the key in a lot lives...

Hang Loose...

ps most artists are broke..so by supporting their label..and showing the suits that you love them, they in turn can have a better life... it's simple humanity people

pss. for those of you that bitch about how a lot of bands let you download their music... and think that is what this article is talking about..please do some research so you don't look like an ignorant retard.
thanks much