Originally Posted by MBM
File-Sharing- the World's Greatest Library
If you are like most people, when you hear the term, "file-sharing", thoughts of the words, "piracy", "copyright", and perhaps, even, "stealing" or "theft" come to mind. We are in the midst of the information age, so these issues, and labels are very relevant to the times. In the so called "Information Age" there is a tremendous amount of wealth and power that comes with controlling these immense stores of digital information. One only need to look at the benefits of being digitally connected versus being one those who has slipped behind, or never got the chance to be part of the digital revolution to realize the advantages.
To this point in time, most of the arguments regarding the sharing of files has been one-sided. The intent of this paper is to give some counter arguments to those distributed to the masses through the mediums which they control . There is a lot at stake here- on one hand, there are those who have legal rights to their products; on the other hand, there are those who are merely short-term borrowers of that information. What some call "theft", or "piracy" could be very little different from the actions of those who utilize the services of a public library. Few would argue against the benefits to public good there.
Libraries are vast collections of works. These works have grown over the years from printed books, to multi-media centers offering music, movies, digital copies of books, and vast amounts of learning materials. Of course, libraries are meant for public, personal use. Business us of libraries is limited to the same level as an individual- it is not permitted to copy a book from the library and resell it. It is very rare to hear of someone abusing the use of a public library. Honestly, the is a calm, quiet reverence in place whether you are inside, or outside the walls. Our society cherishes these halls of knowledge and entertainment!
Corporations are in business, first and foremost, to make money. They have obligations to their boards, shareholders, and even to the communities that depend on them. It would be the ultimate dream of these corporations to collect money each, and every, time someone listens to a song, reads a book, or watches a movie. Many attempts have been made by these industries (recording, and motion picture) to do just this. Consumers have rejected these practices.
The software industry has taken a different, one might almost say, less hostile approach to reducing the number of illegitimate copies. Of these, software protection is probably the greatest deterrent- yet it is not absolutely effective.
Some companies such as Microsoft, have realized the benefit of having "pirated" copies of their software in use. In China, many companies were using illegitimate copies. Instead of suing small, developing companies out of business, they have begun distributing legitimate, free versions of their software to these companies. Once the company gets larger than the software agreement allows, then the companies have the resources necessary to purchase valid copies. Microsoft is satisfied that these companies are using their software rather than one of their competitors. As this shows, it is possible for smart companies to embrace file-sharers (Back, 2009).
There are several distinct ways in which an individual can make use of the files received over the file-sharing networks. The first is for personal use. A downloader satisfies his or her curiosity regarding the product by trying it out. This can be stored for later use, shared with others, or deleted. Second, the user could use the information for academic use. Video clips can be edited, pages of books referenced, and music can be added to other media. Lastly, the downloader can attempt to receive financial gain from the material.
Selling of copyright information is a serious taboo in the file-sharing community. Members who do this are banned from most sites that act as links to files. Real-world authorities are obligated to investigate, and arrest such actions. This puts the site members, the sites, and the community in a light they do not want to be associated with.
At a time when the whole world has exploded with all of the available digital media (television, movies, music, and eBooks), there is also a huge uprising from the corporations who own this media. As with the creation of public libraries, we need to ask ourselves how does media have its greatest value to society? Should it be held closely as a scarce commodity, or distributed freely to those who can learn from, enjoy, or make use of it?
Copyright laws were originally created to protect companies from taking another company's ideas and profiting from them. Since the expansion of the internet into homes across the globe, the attention has shifted to the end-user. As mentioned before, corporations want to make as much money as possible. Where that money comes from seems to be of secondary concern.
It is also important to note that the Industries (motion picture and recording) have actually prospered at the same time "piracy" has been on the rise. While these Industries would have you believe jobs are being lost and their revenues are being "stolen" from them, they are raking in record profits. Not only are movies bringing in massive amounts of cash from ticket sales, but they have also feathered their nests with countless product placements in these pay per seat films. Even someone who downloads a "pirated" copy of a movie is still watching (product placed) advertisements.
The record industry is struggling with the glory days being gone. A close knit group who once held absolute control over who got to make recordings, when they were released, how much they cost, and who/when they were distributed has suddenly found itself nearly obsolete overnight. Of course, people still buy music. However, they can decide which individual songs they wish to pay for. Consumers also have the ability to chose how and where they wish to listen to the products they have. Before, one would need to buy a full CD with 10-12 songs in total and usually only had 1-2 songs that were enjoyed by anyone. This CD had to be played in a CD player. Now, consumers can transfer their files to massive storage devices, or carry them in tiny players that can hold thousands of files.
One often cried slogan which comes from the recording industry is, "[Don't download], support the artists". Ironically enough, very little of the money received by these artists actually comes from record sales. Most of that money goes to the record companies, distributors, and producers. The majority earned by the artist comes from touring and merchandising. Neither of these revenue sources require the record companies anymore. In fact, many artists have begun offering their own songs on their own websites- and have been profitable. Similarly, some writers have posted their own books online and asked for donations. They, too, have met with good results. Much of the battle being fought is coming from the corporate interests and is being waged against end-users. It is not coming from the artists.
The freedom of the internet has come under attack by these entities. Several legislations have been passed over the past decade. One such act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) forbids certain uses of digital media and also creates significant penalties for removing copy protection. Other attempts have been made requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to release the names and account information of file sharers. So far, this has not come to pass, but there are regular, persistent efforts to do so. Some ISPs, fearing future lawsuits from powerful record and movie industries, have begun limiting monthly bandwidth and blocking known file-sharing ports on computers.
While the Industries would have the general public believe that this is all a black-and-white world, there are some unsettled, important questions still unanswered. When someone purchases a copy of a movie or recording, are they able to play it on any device they see fit, or are they required to purchase another copy for use on the new device? If someone wishes to transfer this recording, should they be able to do so without circumventing digital protections and, therefore, violating the DMCA? What duration should a copyrighted element remain protected, and kept from the public domain? Mickey Mouse is one such well-known character that has had its copyright license extended. Some would argue that the copyright laws should remain limited in order to give use to the public good.
How about television programming? Should a cable subscriber be allowed to download shows that appeared on channels that the customer subscribed to, but missed? Should an individual be able to skip over, or delete, commercials? Is there an obligation for the consumer to further pay for the use of that media by watching a commercial attached to the show? How is this different from blocking advertisements that appear on web pages? Does the consumer have an obligation to view these ads as well?
All of these questions are unanswered because the internet, and the ability for consumers to access anything they want, whenever they want, and wherever they feel like using that media are still very new. Personally, I believe in allowing consumers to decide for themselves how they wish to answer.
In a way, file-sharing is an antithesis to the corporate mindset of "everything is about money". What exists within the file-sharing community is a unique environment where scarcity is never a problem. No one is concerned about whether or not they have money. Everyone has access to the same riches; because someone has something does not mean that someone else is going without. The only deciding factor between members of a community who have access to these unlimited resources is what the user is doing with them, how they learned from the experience, or how they can help someone else find what they are looking for.
Not all file-sharing is of illegal, copyrighted files. While there is a vast amount that is (no one would argue otherwise), file-sharing is simply a means of sharing files from one person, or computer, to another. Legislation which stands in the way of doing this is counter to the notions of an Information Age. Corporations will find ways to make money- they always do, and have already. The sharing of information without monetary discrimination is an amazing experience. In fact, the worst fear of the Industries is that eventually so many people will experience what it is like that they will fight against anyone, or anything that tries to take it away from them.
Now image, if you will, having the world's best library across the street from your house. In it are vast collections of media - books, long-lost television programs from your childhood, the latest movies, music from around the world, and anything else your imagination wishes to take you. Is there any way you could be kept from such a fantastic place? Would threats or guilt keep you from entering? The wonderful thing is, one does not even need to cross the street. This library already exists in your PC.
