P2P
Sharing Files
Recently, the phenomenon of sharing files online, such as music, has increased
among people worldwide. This process helps people to find the file they want
faster, easier, and cheaper. This is better than going to the store to purchase
a CD. However, has one ever thought about the consequences of this behavior? Is
it a legal or illegal behavior? Does it have any negative effects instead of
positive effects? If it affects negatively, what would the range of harm be on
the affected side? Who is the affected side? Although sharing files, especially
music, online for free is a simple and easy process. However, it is considered
a crime by the law because it affects the economy negatively and it is one
reason for the financial losses in different industries such as the music
industry.
Most people share music and download them online for free. Therefore, they are
harming the owner and the artist of the music piece they are downloading for
free. When a singer releases a new song in the music market; a lot of money is
spent to make the music and publish it. Then this singer will be waiting for
the profit of his work through the sales of his or her albums. But what happens
is that the percentage of sold copies is small because the majority of people
are downloading the new music online for free. According to the article,
‘Illegal Downloading, Ethical Concern, and Illegal Behavior’, the author
Kirsten Robertson states, “Further, the RIAA’s message of comparing downloading
to stealing a CD is also intended to communicate that downloading is illegal
and it is equivalent to stealing a CD”(Robertson 218). Logically, sharing and
downloading music without paying money is the same as stealing a CD because it
has the same consequences, which is a financial loss to the artist. Therefore,
downloading is stealing but in a sophisticated way. So it is an illegal act
since stealing is a crime that causes the loss of money.
Sharing files have affected the sale of music in the music industry which has
contributed to the drop of sales. Some of the websites which enable this free
sharing are the main reason for this collapse in the sale of music. 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’s article, ‘Measuring the
Effect of File Sharing Music Purchases’, a lawsuit was filed against Napster in
San Francisco in the United States because of engaging in, enabling and
facilitating others in copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting and
distributing the plaintiff’s copyrighted musical compositions and sound
recordings. These are protected by either federal or state laws without express
permission of the owner’s rights (Zentner 64). That lawsuit was the result of
the collapse in the music sales that occurred due to websites that allowed
people to share files without paying for them. To be more specific, those
websites reduced the number of buying of physical CDs by thirty percent, which
is not a small number. This is because more people are downloading than buying.
Moreover, Zentner estimated that the sales in 2002 would have been higher if
there was no free downloading on those websites (Zentner 63). If we find
the people using some of these websites in order to download and share music
instead of buying them, we will fine them since they are more than those who
buy the physical CD and it is not fair.
In the United States, the lawsuits are filing up
against people who get used to share music using the peer-to-peer sharing
service in online websites and this is being done by the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA). People share music and gain money illegally and
then they end up hurting the artist and the music industry. This is the same as
what happened in the ‘Free Culture’ book by Jesse Jordan, who was a freshman at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York. A lawsuit was filed 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 stealing
because it hurts the economy and the financial case of the owner of the stolen
property. It not only hurts the owner, but it also affects the financial case
of the pirate as well. Because of the existence of the RIAA, the rights of
people and businesses are protected through pirates being ordered to pay a huge
amount of money and this would affect their financial budget and could drive
them to bankruptcy.
Moving on to the copyright issue, the peer-to-
peer file sharing could affect the copyright negatively and it would hurt the
economy and the sales of products. 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 someone else’s work than to create a new piece of music or a
new song. This process is provided in an easy and fast way in the websites of
peer-to-peer sharing files where pirates can find and take 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 hurts twice. The first time is when the original work is being pirated by
people sharing files illegally and the second time is when they publish it and
then benefit from the profits of the new music which is not their 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
for the economy collapsing especially in the music field. The ways it hurts are
different, either by downloading them instead of buying them physically or by
sharing music illegally on online websites or also by invading the copyright
issue. Those cases are the main reasons why the economy is failing. Downloading
should stop and end.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment