P2P Sharing Files
Recently, the phenomenon of sharing files
online, such as musing, has been separated among people worldwide. This process
helps people to find the file they want faster, easier, and cheaper than going
to the store to purchase a CD. However, has one ever though about the
consequences of this behavior? Is it a legal or illegal behavior? Does it have
any negative effects in stead of the positive effect ? If it is affected negatively, what would
the range of the harm is going to be on the effected slide? Who is the effected slide? Although sharing files, especially music, online for free is a
simple and easy process, it considered as a crime by the law because its effect
negatively on the economy; it is a reason of the financial losses especially
music industry.
Most people share music and download them online for free; therefore, they are harming
the owner, the artist, of the piece they download for free. Lets say that a
singer released a new song in the music market; a lot of money was spent to
make this music and publish it, then this singer would be waiting for the
profit of his work. But, what happing is that the percent of the physical sold
copies is decreasing because the majority is downloading the new music online
freely. According to the article Illegal Downloading, Ethical Concern, And
Illegal Behavior, the author Kirsten Robertson states, “Further, the RIAA’s
message comparing downloading to stealing a CD is also intended to communicate
that downloading is illegal, equivalent to stealing a CD”(Robertson 218). Logically,
sharing and downloading music without paying money is same as stealing a CD
because it’s has the same consequence, which is a financial loss to the artist.
Therefore, downloading is a stealing but in a sophisticated way, so it is an
illegal behavior because stealing is a crime that causes losing money.
Sharing files has been affected the sale of
the music industry, which contributes in the drop of the sales; and some of the
websites, who enable the free sharing, were the main reason of this collapse in
the music industry’s sales. The process of sharing and downloading music for
free is too easy in some websites such as, Napster. And according to the author
Alejandro Zentner in the article, Measuring the Effect of File Sharing Music Purchases,
a lawsuit was against Napster in San Francisco in the United States of America
because of the “engaging in or enabling, or facilitating others in copying,
downloading, uploading, trans- mitting, or distributing plaintiffs copyrighted
musical compositions and sound recordings, protected by either federal or state
law, without express permission of the rights owner”(Zentner 64). That lawsuit was the
result of the collapse in the music sales that happened because of the websites, which allows people to share files without paying money. To be more specific, those websites reduced
the number of buying physical CDs thirty percent, which is not a small number or percent,
because of the downloading. Moreover, Zentner estimated that the sales in 2002
would be higher if there was no free downloading in those websites (Zentner 63). If we
realized the number of people using same of those websites in order to download
and share music instead of buying them, we will fine them outnumber those who
buy the physical CD, especially in the recent years, then its harm the sales.
In the United States, the lawsuits are filling
permanently against people, who get used to share music using the peer-to-peer
sharing service in online websites, by the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA). People would share music and
gain money by making business illegally then they would hurt not only the music industry , but the
artist as well. Same as what happened in Free Culture book to Jesse Jordan, who was a
freshmen at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York; a lawsuit was filled
against him when he used the service of sharing music online. He was ordered to
pay about $15,000,000 by the RIAA because he was branded as a pirate, the
adverb of piracy, which means “using the creative property of others without
their permission” (Lawrence Lessig, 53). So this behavior is considered as a
stealing, a crime, because it hurt the economy or the financial case of the
owner of the stolen property. It not only hurt the owner, but it also affect the financial case of the pirate as well. Because of the existence of
the RIAA the rights are protected; then pirates will be ordered to pay a huge
amount of money and that would affect their financial budget and could drive
them to bankrupt.
Moving on
to the copyright issue, the peer-to- peer files sharing could affect the copyright
negatively, and then it would also hurt the economy and the sales. According to
the Copyright Criminals movie, Shock G, a digital underground, said that “ it
is easier to snap a picture with a camera than paint a picture” comparing this
phrase to music, it would be easier to take some one else work than to create a
new piece of music or a new song. This process is provided in an easy and a
fast way in the websites of peer-to-peer sharing files, where pirates can find and take, “snap”, a song or a piece of music then improve it, after that publish it in an
easy, fast and economical way. However, the economic status of the creator is being
affected negatively and hurt twice. The first time is, when the original work
is being pirated, by people sharing files illegally, and second time when they
publish it and benefit from the profit of the new word, which is not his/her
original work. In other words, the owner is not only losing the copyrights, but
also losing money.
The peer-to-peer file sharing is the main reason of the economic
collapse especially in the music field. The ways it hurt are different,
whether by downloading them instead of buying them physically or by sharing
music illegally in online websites, or by invading the copyright issue. Those
cases are paths to reach the dropped economy that accompanied a financial lose
to one side, the owners, or both sides, owners and pirates.
Works cited
Copyright
criminals. Dir. Benjamin Farnzen, and Kembrew, McLeod. 2009. Film.
Lessig,
Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control
Creativity.New York: Penguin, 2004. Free Culture. Web. 27 Sept. 2010.
Robertson, Kirsten,
Lisa McNeill, James Green, and Claire Roberts. "Illegal Downloading, Ethical Concern, and
Illegal Behavior." Journal of Business Ethics, 108.2 (2012): 215-227.
Zentner, Alejandro.
"Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases." The Journal of Law and
Economics, 49.1 (2006): 63-90.
