File sharing is the practice of making files available for other users to download over the Internet and smaller networks. Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files are stored on and served by personal computers of the users. Most people who engage in file sharing are also downloading files that other users share. (“File Sharing,” 2007, para. 1)
A relatively unknown method of getting files online, file sharing was only exposed to the mainstream audience in the year of 1999 when Shawn Fanning and his friend, Sean Parker first released the original Napster on the 1st of June. (“Napster,” 2007)
It started when heavy metal band, Metallica discovered that a demo of their song, 'I Disappear' had been circulating around the internet even before its release. Much to their chagrin. It eventually led to their song being played in radio stations across America. In 2002, the band retaliated by filling a lawsuit against the service Napster offered. (“Napster,” 2007) The brouhaha ignited the controversial lawsuit against Napster which ultimately signaled the banning of mp3 downloads.
The line between sharing and stealing is grey. Downloading music is deemed as illegal. A rather serious felony considering that ripping off someone's work is a form of illusive theft. More like a creative robbery. The problem lies in the concept of copyright and intellectual property. While content creaters fight hard to protect their rights, there are others who disagree. Bands like Ten Mile Tide would tell you that peer-to-peer file-sharing services aren't really the great evil that music moguls and wealthier bands like Metallica are making them out to be (“Spreading the love,” October 11, 2006). According to Ten Mile Tide, “Online file sharing has connected us with music fans around the world and increased our album sales ten-fold.” In this scenario, the content creaters themselves embrace sharing their music online. It even helped exposed them to the masses and boost their sales. It seems that content sharing can be described as a double-edged sword. Risk piracy or risk plummeting album sales.
The sharing of information, particularly the proliferation of illegal sharing of copyrighted materials on peer to peer networks, has made the entertainment industries very nervous. Copyright law, some believed, did not adequately deal with digital content. In response, Congress passed several laws, including the No Electronic Theft Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Ovalle, 2005).
The question is, “How can we project the interest of both the content creater and the public good?” The debate is aptly addressed through Borland (2000), “The company is stuck in a difficult position, attempting to abide by the strictures of copyright law while trying to please its members as much as possible. Under federal rules, Internet companies have to remove content or links identified by copyright holders as potential copyright infringements or face legal liability.”
The key is to compromise. By balance things out, both parties will be provided with what they want. Accommodate both interest and cater to all if possible. Thing is, how do we achieve such a feat? There are several factors that can be undertaken. It just boils down if both parties are willing to compromise.
Socially Ethical
Don't mind paying for a track? I personally think that this will work. Especially in the long run. Why? Basically, the artistes get a fraction of the profits so their hard work would not go to waste. They cannot complain that the fans are sponging on their songs without paying a dime. As for the music listeners, they are free to download songs but are charged at a relatively affordable price. For example, users can purchase songs for 99 cents and $9.99 a movie from iTunes. Socially, both content creaters and the public get what they want. Its legal and very ethical.
Law Abiding
The issue regarding intellectual property is basically respecting someone's ownership of content. The risk of file sharing is piracy. When the public go on a rampage and loads up on everything they can access online, it's wrong. Wrong to take away something without the owner's permission and most importantly, acknowledgement. If we address this issue, the probability of getting both content creaters and the public to respect each other's position will work.
Its the basic idea of give and take. Content creaters need to allow the public access to their files. Approval is the main factor here. As for the public, they are not to abuse their freedom and rights in obtaining the contents. Owners should always be given credit.
The internet is a pool to retrieve data. It is ironical when laws are imposed to curb the ability to obtain important information.
Maybe it is alright to share.
References
Borland, J. (May 11, 2000). Is Napster's Metallica ban weakening? CNET News.com. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://news.com.com/Is+Napsters+Metallica+ban+weakening/2100-1023_3-240445.html
File Sharing. (January 29, 2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing
Heng, E. (October 11, 2005). Spreading the love. CNET News.com. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/techbuzz/audio_arsonist/0,39041384,39276805,00.htm
Napster. (January 31, 2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
A relatively unknown method of getting files online, file sharing was only exposed to the mainstream audience in the year of 1999 when Shawn Fanning and his friend, Sean Parker first released the original Napster on the 1st of June. (“Napster,” 2007)
It started when heavy metal band, Metallica discovered that a demo of their song, 'I Disappear' had been circulating around the internet even before its release. Much to their chagrin. It eventually led to their song being played in radio stations across America. In 2002, the band retaliated by filling a lawsuit against the service Napster offered. (“Napster,” 2007) The brouhaha ignited the controversial lawsuit against Napster which ultimately signaled the banning of mp3 downloads.
The line between sharing and stealing is grey. Downloading music is deemed as illegal. A rather serious felony considering that ripping off someone's work is a form of illusive theft. More like a creative robbery. The problem lies in the concept of copyright and intellectual property. While content creaters fight hard to protect their rights, there are others who disagree. Bands like Ten Mile Tide would tell you that peer-to-peer file-sharing services aren't really the great evil that music moguls and wealthier bands like Metallica are making them out to be (“Spreading the love,” October 11, 2006). According to Ten Mile Tide, “Online file sharing has connected us with music fans around the world and increased our album sales ten-fold.” In this scenario, the content creaters themselves embrace sharing their music online. It even helped exposed them to the masses and boost their sales. It seems that content sharing can be described as a double-edged sword. Risk piracy or risk plummeting album sales.
The sharing of information, particularly the proliferation of illegal sharing of copyrighted materials on peer to peer networks, has made the entertainment industries very nervous. Copyright law, some believed, did not adequately deal with digital content. In response, Congress passed several laws, including the No Electronic Theft Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Ovalle, 2005).
The question is, “How can we project the interest of both the content creater and the public good?” The debate is aptly addressed through Borland (2000), “The company is stuck in a difficult position, attempting to abide by the strictures of copyright law while trying to please its members as much as possible. Under federal rules, Internet companies have to remove content or links identified by copyright holders as potential copyright infringements or face legal liability.”
The key is to compromise. By balance things out, both parties will be provided with what they want. Accommodate both interest and cater to all if possible. Thing is, how do we achieve such a feat? There are several factors that can be undertaken. It just boils down if both parties are willing to compromise.
Socially Ethical
Don't mind paying for a track? I personally think that this will work. Especially in the long run. Why? Basically, the artistes get a fraction of the profits so their hard work would not go to waste. They cannot complain that the fans are sponging on their songs without paying a dime. As for the music listeners, they are free to download songs but are charged at a relatively affordable price. For example, users can purchase songs for 99 cents and $9.99 a movie from iTunes. Socially, both content creaters and the public get what they want. Its legal and very ethical.
Law Abiding
The issue regarding intellectual property is basically respecting someone's ownership of content. The risk of file sharing is piracy. When the public go on a rampage and loads up on everything they can access online, it's wrong. Wrong to take away something without the owner's permission and most importantly, acknowledgement. If we address this issue, the probability of getting both content creaters and the public to respect each other's position will work.
Its the basic idea of give and take. Content creaters need to allow the public access to their files. Approval is the main factor here. As for the public, they are not to abuse their freedom and rights in obtaining the contents. Owners should always be given credit.
The internet is a pool to retrieve data. It is ironical when laws are imposed to curb the ability to obtain important information.
Maybe it is alright to share.
References
Borland, J. (May 11, 2000). Is Napster's Metallica ban weakening? CNET News.com. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://news.com.com/Is+Napsters+Metallica+ban+weakening/2100-1023_3-240445.html
File Sharing. (January 29, 2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing
Heng, E. (October 11, 2005). Spreading the love. CNET News.com. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/techbuzz/audio_arsonist/0,39041384,39276805,00.htm
Napster. (January 31, 2007). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
Ovalle, C. (2005). “What is copyright?”. University of Texas at Austin, Course INF 312. Information in Cyberspace. Retrieved on February 1, 2007, from
http://sentra.ischool.utexas.edu/~i312co/3.php
2 comments:
"Information yearns to be free", and as you've stated, it's a tough call when there's an industry to support. Decent solutions listed, and it's heartening to see some of you considering the 99 cent per track option as viable. When iTunes comes around later in the year, we'll see if this really plays out. Full grade awarded!
"When iTunes comes around later in the year". You mean it'll be here in Singapore? Cause when I'm desperate, I'll just get my scoop via the US site. ;)
Post a Comment