Is file-sharing wrong?

[LiveMusic]

We've "discussed" similar themes on other threads over the past few months but I would certainly appreciate your input on this "morality" issue. Do you consider the following "wrong" and if not, do you mind sharing why you have your position pertaining to music recordings? 1. Copying a friend's music CD for your own use. 2. Downloading songs from file-sharing services like Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. for your own use. 3. Copying software (could be any type of software) from a friend's CD for your own use. This entire issue of file-sharing is very confusing to me. I admit that I have downloaded some songs. I have also bought more CDs in the past year than in the past 25 years combined. Although, that has little to do with file-sharing, it's just that I didn't buy hardly any CDs for 25 years and now, I've gone nuts working on my music. But some of the CDs I have bought, I did so after hearing a song downloaded from a file-sharing service. Does that make it okay? I dunno about this whole thing. Reason I ask is because the music industry is obviously undergoing a major paradigm shift. Where it's headed isn't clear. Will it be good for music? Will it be good for the songwriters? I dunno. You probably have friends who do not buy CDs anymore... they just download them and make their own. And you probably have friends who don't buy CDs if their friends have them because they just make a copy with their burner. Is this "right?" When I first downloaded songs and made a CD, I thought to myself "Wow, this is TOO easy. Man, this is gonna shake up the world." It certainly has. But is it good? Is it "right?" Same thing occurred to me when CD burners allowed you to dupe an entire CD. Is that "good?" If this is all for the good, what about artists and songwriters getting their due? Will they? Does it matter? I'd certainly appreciate your comments.

[Dak Lander]

I still buy cd's. I can guarantee though, that not one of the cd's I've purchased in at least the last 5 years has been in a music store, Wherehouse & etc. All they see to carry is the top 20 crap. I'll try something by downloading & if I like it, I'll buy that person's cd. I have a Tower Records gift card from 4 years ago. I never go to those places so it's settin' on my desk waitin'.

[Rog]

There are two things I think about this, First, it's all stealing - so it's all wrong in a moral sense. Second, who are you stealing from? Frankly, if Microsoft or a big record label loose money because I, or anyone else, copy their stuff then that's fine by me. I'd like to see these companies go bust tomorrow and I'll do anything I can to facilitate this. If we're talking about small labels who rely on small sales to support artists they believe in then, no - I don't copy stuff, I use the money I would have given to the majors to support the indie labels. Like most people I have only a finite amount of money to spend and I care about who I support. Morally, I'm in the wrong here as I steal from multinationals but I believe the world would be a better and fairer place without Microsoft, Fox, Sony, BMG, EMI, etc. As for file sharing, someone, somewhere fucked up and now it's possible to get hold of anything you want with IMesh, etc. I use it to check out stuff I am reticent to buy without hearing first - Grandaddy, DJ Shadow, and many others now have my money which they wouldn't have without file sharing - I probably would have used the money to buy yet another Dylan album (or whatever) as a safer bet.

[Sudden Light Project]

I dunno Rog. I respect your outlook, and never let it be said that I won't upgrade from a friend's disc... but implying that these companies have no right to exist, is a little extreme. I think the gubment needs to leave BG alone... I wonder how much longer it would have taken us to get to where I am right now...which having a discussion on the internet with you...if it had not have been for people like BG... Does he have more money than he needs?..... Hell yes Do I give a shit?.... Hell no Why did he happen? Because the big dogs at that time ignored him... What happens when companies like Microsoft, Sony, etc., get to big for their britches? somebody like BG comes along and kicks them in the ass So now, it is time for an entrepeneur like BG to step up to the plate, and start kickin' a little ass....

[surfjunkie]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]I'd like to see these companies go bust tomorrow and I'll do anything I can to facilitate this. [/b][/quote]i agree with Mr. James, you took it too far. i don't disagree with your yes/no opinion on file sharing, but you're talking about millions of employees working for these companies. if you're going to argue this, don't go all revolutionary. keep it simple.

[Deathtoallwhoopposeme]

I buy all my CD's but if i have to learn some lame song for my band, and it's not my tast, yea, i'll download it to learn it....and then delete it..I was never planning on buying it anyway so they didn't loose anything...File sharing is popular because people want to know there is enough quality in the product before then invest. That's how it started with music anyway. Then the assholes that think it should all be free started running rampant. Is it wrong to think you can get it all for free?? The stuff that you would buy anyway? Hell yea!! go buy it and support the artist, even if most of them will never see the cash!! Or at least sent the artist the Dollar he/she will make off the CD if he/she ever gets out of debt to the record company...

[jnorman]

i've downloaded a bunch of songs from kazaa, but they are almost all old things, live jazz, etc - not things that are easy to find on CDs. OTOH, the only CDs i have bought lately were from mp3.com artists like "3's A Crowd" (piano jazz - just excellent), and some really nifty celtic stuff from a flute and harp duo, "walking tune" by rosewynde. hmm, i did buy one commercial CD this year - michael brecker's "ballad book".

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by wager47: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]I'd like to see these companies go bust tomorrow and I'll do anything I can to facilitate this. [/b][/quote]i agree with Mr. James, you took it too far. i don't disagree with your yes/no opinion on file sharing, but you're talking about millions of employees working for these companies. if you're going to argue this, don't go all revolutionary. keep it simple.[/b][/quote]Why? That's my opinion and it's not going to change or change the world too much (if at all) The dubious business tactics of many big multinationals is one thing. Another is that they are so big that they get away with it time and time again. Another is their propensity to monopolise and bleed dry markets. Anyway, different discussion entirely :) Suffice to say I won't be keeping it simple and if my views are revoultionary then that's cool with me ;) Peace :)

[Danny M]

[quote]1. Copying a friend's music CD for your own use.[/quote]That is stealing, unless you previously purchased the same disc. [quote]2. Downloading songs from file-sharing services like Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. for your own use.[/quote]This is also stealing, unless it is not actually possible to obtain a legal copy of the transmitted file. [quote]3. Copying software (could be any type of software) from a friend's CD for your own use.[/quote]This is also stealing, unless, again, it is not possible to obtain a legal copy. Please note that "not possible to obtain a legal copy" does [b]not[/b] mean that you can't afford something because your allowance is too low. -Danny

[Uh Clem]

This is not complicated - you just need to check the definition of the verb share, and follow thru with the theme: 1. Copying a friend's music CD for your own use. >this is copying, not sharing 2. Downloading songs from file-sharing services like Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. for your own use. >this is also copying, even though the verb share has been clevely placed into the description 3. Copying software (could be any type of software) from a friend's CD for your own use. >this is not sharing, it is copying Why do you think they call it [b]copy[/b]right?

[Rog]

Steve & Danny: I thought we aleadry established this! Yes, it's morally wrong, if you're a christian then you probably think I (and millions of others) will go straight to hell. Your arguments are simplistic (in the nicest and most honest sense :) ) People do this. It's wrong. They still do it. At what point does it become a serious problem? If you're a catholic, masturbation is wrong. People still do it, at what point does blindness become a problem? Peace :)

[Ed A.]

And now for a completely different point of view...Say a friend drops a box of CDs off at your house. Your friend tells you that you can have this box of CDs to use. Would you say "No thanks, I'll go out and buy my own"? How is this any different than your friend putting this music in a shared folder and making it accessible via say, LimeWire for example. The concept is the same. Your friend is allowing you to use his music collection in either example, so what is the difference? The 1992 US Home Recording Law allows for individuals to make copies of music or movies for their own personal use. Don't agree with this? Then better stop recording those movies off of HBO or that TV show on Tivo or the FBI might kick your door down and haul you away ;) . This is not stealing, this is sharing. You have a right by law to do this. Stealing would be going into a shop, sticking an item in your jacket and leaving without paying. What's next? Maybe the record companies will insist that you write them a check every time you listen to the radio.

[Danny M]

[quote]Yes, it's morally wrong, if you're a christian then you probably think I (and millions of others) will go straight to hell.[/quote]Ah, no. It's morally wrong, I am a Christian, and I think that the vast majority of humanity is rather unlikely to find themselves in hell. File sharing isn't an eternally damning offense, and not subscribing to a Christian faith isn't even an offense to begin with (as I've come to believe). What was the subject of this thread again? [quote]Your arguments are simplistic (in the nicest and most honest sense :) ) People do this. It's wrong. They still do it. At what point does it become a serious problem?[/quote]It becomes a serious problem when the status quo is to accept thievery as an acceptable practice. It becomes an even more serious problem when people would steal to [b]willingly do harm[/b] to other people. I'm willing to accept a person refusing to buy a major label's product. Capitalism demands that the major labels either produce a product that people wish to buy, or suffer the consequences of lost revenue. However, stealing is inethical. The way I see it, denying a business revenue by not purchasing a product is all fine and good, but denying a business revenue and taking something that does not belong to you is quite odious (for the reason that one is doing something inethical in the process of denying the business any revenue). People complain mightily about the majors stealing from artists, consumers, etc. By these same people stealing, they bring themselves to the same level as the very things they despise. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Many people have pointed out that society is enriched by sharing ideas. It certainly is. However, our society has evolved to a point where certain ideas and information (music, for one) are considered property. Many people make their livelihoods in some way that relates to the creation or handling of monetized information. Sudden, reckless changes in these societal ideas can cause rather catastrophic consequences, not only for businesses, but for [b]individuals.[/b] In the end, though, I suppose it comes down to the much overused and worn-out word [b]respect.[/b] It seems that a number of folks don't consider musicians, recording engineers, producers, and label staff (all of these people may, shockingly, be quite wholesome and well meaning ;) ) as worthy to make a living in something they enjoy. Somehow, although music makes up a huge chunk of what consumers buy, it isn't seen as valuable, and the people who make it are seen as disposable. There is a certain amount of fun and enjoyment involved in making music, [b]but it is not easy to do.[/b] Making high-quality music requires skill and hard-work. Decades of practice in one's craft is what makes the best musicians, recording engineers, producers, and label staff. It's better for everyone if these people are allowed the opportunity to dedicate their lives to what they want to do, rather than squeeze it into their spare moments. -Danny

[Anderton]

My personal guidelines is that if you're depriving someone of their livelihood, it's stealing. For example, suppose you download a song and don't like it, so you don't listen to it again. That doesn't deprive anyone of their livelihood, because if you'd been able to hear the song over the stupid effing radio like you used to be able to do, you'd know not to buy it. But if you end up playing the song a lot, then you should support the person who made it. Software is a particularly sensitive issue with me, because the music industry is tiny and many companies exist on a shoestring, with few employees. Every piece of software someone uses but doesn't buy means less resources for upgrades, technical support, bug fixes, new products, etc. If you insist on "ripping off the man" (e.g., Microsoft), I don't agree but it's your conscience. But if you rip off people who are working their butts off for not much bucks (and zero security) to provide you with cool tools, that's low.

[LiveMusic]

[quote]Originally posted by stevepow: [b]This is not complicated - you just need to check the definition of the verb share, and follow thru with the theme...[/b][/quote]Steve, I value your opinion and there's something probably really good in your post but for some reason, I can't follow you. You wanna just give me a brief summary? I may be totally misunderstanding your position.

[LiveMusic]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]...Software is a particularly sensitive issue with me, because the music industry is tiny and many companies exist on a shoestring, with few employees...[/b][/quote]See, I view a song like "software." My brother and I develop software. Two-man show. If people copy our software and we don't get anything out of it, that's not very fair, is it. That's stealing. And what's the difference between the software that my brother and I develop versus a song that takes months to write, edit, work up and produce. It seems to me that songs are very much like software development. An artist, a "developer" has used his skills and his time and money to make it happen. So, downloading and using songs for free, it just doesn't sit right with me. As my conscience ate at me about songs I got from this new "download" phenomena, I went and bought the CD. And I copied Alan Jackson and Trace Adkins CDs from friends but later bought the real thing. And yep, there are still a couple more I need to make right. :) If human beings are given the opportunity to get something for free that they would otherwise have to fork over their skekels for... they will take the free route EN MASSE. And that's the problem. I really do not know where this thing is headed. But the musicians are the ones that I worry about. They are the "developers." And EN MASSE, that can be dangerous.

[Anderton]

[[If human beings are given the opportunity to get something for free that they would otherwise have to fork over their skekels for... they will take the free route EN MASSE. And that's the problem. I really do not know where this thing is headed. But the musicians are the ones that I worry about. They are the "developers." And EN MASSE, that can be dangerous.]] I guess we need to ask the question whether people want to do the right thing or not. You mentioned that your conscience bothered you, so you bought CDs of songs you downloaded. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work, I think...but how many people feel the way you do? There was a very interesting discussion at the Frankfurt show among manufacturers regarding piracy. As one person said, there's no point in trying to eliminate piracy, because it's simply not possible. But through education, perhaps it can be reduced. All it takes is people with a conscience, and a good reason to "be cool" about buying software. I think that supporting the companies that make all this cool stuff so they can make more is a compelling enough reason.

[videoeditor1]

[quote]Originally posted by LiveMusic: [b] [quote]Originally posted by stevepow: [b]This is not complicated - you just need to check the definition of the verb share, and follow thru with the theme...[/b][/quote]Steve, I value your opinion and there's something probably really good in your post but for some reason, I can't follow you. You wanna just give me a brief summary? I may be totally misunderstanding your position.[/b][/quote]It's easy: Not ok: Borrowing a pal's CD to make a copy for your self. That's copying.... Ok: Borrowing your pal's CD to play on that 2hr trip to Sna Diego. NYC Drew

[Uh Clem]

Thanks NYCD - I thought I was tripping for a sec. It [i]is[/i] simple - it gets only complicated when you start trying to rationalize why it might be OK to steal. If you do not support products produced by a large corp like Microsoft or Sony do not use their products - that is the way to send that message (is it OK to rip off some Sony 7506's - even better yet if you steal them from MARS or GC? I mean those big stores are putting the little guys outta business, they need a lesson, right?). Stealing product will not put a company like that out of business, they will pass the cost of theft along to legitimate consumers as part of the cost of doing business. I'm not a Christian - neither is my dog (as far as I know), but even he seems to have an innate sense of right and wrong.

[Rim]

I think it's wrong to do all that stuff (in the original post). Am I perfect? No, but I am well aware when I'm stealing and I try to limit it. I don't subscribe to the notion of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not wrong". I feel if you listen to it more than once, you got something out of it that you wouldn't have gotten if you didn't steal it. I'm the same way with software. I know exactly which software I'm using is legal and which aren't. I don't kid myself. Speaking of software, remember that shareware is not free. It's only free during what the software developer has decided is its trial period. After that, you should buy it or uninstall it. I guess I just don't like the idea of rationalizing what you're doing wrong. I'd rather be more honest to myself and God (since it is a moral issue). Being honest about it doesn't make it more right, but at least I'm not kidding myself that it's right.

[gtrmac]

[quote]The 1992 US Home Recording Law allows for individuals to make copies of music or movies for [b]their own personal use.[/b][/quote]The key words are "their own personal use". This law never intended to allow people to share their music with the entire world. Obviously, the recordings or CDROMS of software are the property of the copyright holder and if you don't like the rules of the game your only ethical course of action is to boycott buying their product. I happen to find my Windows computers extremely useful and I can't seem to bring myself to get worked up in a rage against Bill Gates either. He made a good product. His business practices suck and I do find fault with the way the government dropped the ball on the case against Microsoft but I still don't think this gives me the right to steal Microsoft property.

[Matt.Hepworth]

File sharing has its place, but it is VERY misused. Yes, I have downloaded songs and I have personally burned one CD for myself and my friend (who has the LP), but the second I can find that CD I will buy it. I will occasionally download a hard to find song, but it is not so I don't have to buy it, it is to tide me over until I can find it. Anyone ever have a CD stolen? How about hard to find ones? Because someone else stole from you, do you lose your right to have a copy of a CD that you had legally purchased? Sadly, most people who download, download songs to avoid spending money. Some of my friends do this (coincidentally, the ones who can't hear the difference between mp3, wma, and CD audio), even though I try to discourage them. Am I, therefore, a hypocrite? Just some food for thought.

[Rog]

That's one thing that's either a benefit or a problem depending on how you look at it. MP3s I listen to a lot mean I'll buy the album because I want to find out what the tracks really sound like when not filtered through the awful MP3 encoding process. I see that as a benefit - I'm not ripping off an artist in a sense because I'm getting a rough facsimile of the track and if I like it, I'll buy it. I see that as a benefit. It's also a problem as it drives down the perception of quality held by many consumers. There again, a lot of CDs sound like shit to me too ;)

[videoeditor1]

I bought the 1990's Sade CD (Love Deluxe?) maybe 4 or five times. Once I broke the CD, next I borrowed my Pal's, they stole my car with it in it, so I bought 2 more (one fer him...and one fer me...). Then, they stole my new car, Then I got fed up, bought a 200 changer CD player, made a copy of every one of my CD's, I leave the originals in the cases on the shelf, the copies go in the car and in the changer. Since I used to (& still try to) drag my wife to all of my gigs, she's so, so, so very sick of music, and refuses to listen to any of that stuff.... I consider myself as one being a part of the industry that a few/some have attempted to demonize. I've gotten nice fat checks from SONY, Atlantic etc, and never once did I think...[i]"OK, let me tear this the "F" up, and send the shreds back to them..."[/i] Hence, being a beneficiary and a contributor to the "system", purchasing material (audio, video, data, software) that may be in violation of copyright laws is a no-no for me, and my company. While the mouthpieces are hollering and screaming at anyone and everyone that downloads music etc, they are more concerned with the type of activity that is motivated by, a. minimizing expenditure - which translates into lower profits for the rec./dist companies b. profit (ie illicit resale) again at the expense of said companies. If the statistics indicated that 98% of all the people that downloaded material went on to purchase the actual music - online downloads would be the biggest advertising / marketing coup in history. Even before the advent of internet downloading etc, record companies were (and still are) spending a disproportionate amount of money towards "promotion" of their respective catalogues... more later..... NYC Drew

[gtrmac]

Drew- Making a copy of a CD to play in your car or to put in a CD changer is exactly what the "Fair Use Clause" is meant to allow. It's the same with software. You are allowed to make a backup of a CDROM so that you can protect the original as long as you are making the copy for your own use.