The ethics of P2P

[rcgreen]

I'm not a kid any more. I rarely even listen to music, let alone share
files. (it bores me) But I wish to argue in defense of file sharing,
echoing what the teens have been saying all along. File sharing is not
piracy. In fact, in spite of how many times the record industry says so,
it may not even be illegal in any sense at all, but may eventually
be found to be within the definition of fair use.

Think of this analogy. Back when I was a teen (circa 1970), a buddy
might call me up and say, "I just got the new led zeppelin album, why
don't you come over and listen?" I go over and he plays the record and
I listen. Guess what? I'm listening to the music without paying. Isn't
that against the law, or at least unethical?

No, it isn't, obviously. So, we've established that listening without
paying isn't necessarily illegal. So today, your buddy IM's you and
shoots the file to your PC, so you can do the same thing I did in 1970,
listen without paying. In fact this is what people have been doing since
the invention of radio. They turn on the radio and listen for free,
and it is perfectly legal.

So what is so different with P2P file sharing that makes it any different
legally or ethically from those earlier methods of listening?

[el-half]

That's true, but now people burn the cd's they would normally buy themselves, if you heard a song on the radio and you wanted their LP or CD you'd still have to buy it which isn't the case anymore these days. I find kazaa useful to download some songs of a band to listen if they are good and then I buy a cd of them. (the bands I prefer are never played on the radio).
Sometimes cds aren't available in some places, for example: I burned "Walk among us" from the misfits because I couldn't find it anyware. But I did buy Legacy of brutality and Famous Monsters.

[pwaring]

Also, tunes on the radio generally fade out early, so you can't record them easily. In fact, the whole idea of radio (from the record companies' point of view) is to make you hear their songs all the time so you go out and buy the CD.

I always buy the CDs (no really, I do!) for the artists I like and I rarely bother with filesharing. I would only consider downloading an MP3 if I couldn't find the song on disc, and if I later found the single/album then I'd buy that and delete the MP3 file.

BTW, home taping was supposed to destroy the record industry (remember all those warnings on LPs about it?) but they're still multi-billion dollar companies. I believe people will buy the songs they want on CD if the price was right (£15, or about $22, is a rip-off in my opinion), because most people are law-abiding citizens. Same with pirated versions of Windows (if you're a student, you're not going to fork out £300+ for Windows XP and Office XP). It's simple economics: if the price is too high, people will switch to a substitute - and in terms of music that substitute to CDs is P2P file sharing.

[hiddeninclouds]

You know at the start of napster I would download tons of music, and of everything i downloaded most of what i enjoyed i would go out and buy. But as soon as the industry started its bitching I turned my back on them. It's been at least 2 years since i've bought a cd, there's a ton of music i like, and many cd's i'd love to own, but i refuse to give my money to the greedy children that make up the music industry.

[Secure]

I like p2p alot, perhaps the music industry will consider dropping those over-inflated prices on thier music cd's. From what I have heard they are making "efforts" to do this. This whole 1 dollar a song thing should be good for them. After all, who wants to buy a cd that only contains one song they enjoy listening to? I think this online music thing is brilliant. Makes you wonder why they didn't think of it earlier? Greed maybe? Hehe....

$ecure

[el-half]

If you only like one song you just don't buy the cd.
I only buy a cd if I think 80% of the songs kick ass.

[Secure]

I agree el.

$ecure

[Deimos326]

you cant say that sharing music files is illegal, cause if you said that you might as well say sharing any files is illegal, and of course that would eventually say the internet is illegal. too bad if the artists arent getting a ton of money, they still make more than the people who deserve that amount of money, like teachers. so what if you say its different than other file sharing. the RIAA can kiss my @$$. the whole point of networks is to share files. heres something to think about. i have a LAN setup at my house, and using one age of empires cd, i can play with 3 other people on my own computers, and if they bring their own computers, i can support up to 6 others playing, all off of one cd. its basically the same thing as sharing music and media, your getting the same without paying for it. besides, even if the RIAA does win this fight, people will find more and more ways to get around the laws and share music and media. its a hopeless fight for the RIAA, theres no way they can win.

[adiz]

When napster and kazaa were in their prime hell yeah I downloaded alot of songs and such, but it has just gotten lame and I would rather go buy the CD if I really like the band because the quality is always good.

Adiz

[RoadClosed]

Walk into Wal-Mart, grab a CD of Metallica, stuff it in your jacket and then walk out the door with it, bypassing all registers and not paying for it, then tell me what happens? Was it legal? Was it illegal? If you weren't stopped, keep doing it everyday with a different album. Then if you still didn't get caught after a few hundred or thousand, make copies and hand them out to people as they leave the store. Tell them it's ok because it's not illegal. Give one to everyone who comes out and if they bought the same album urge them to take it back and get their money refunded.

That is a more literal analogy.