Sharing Of Music And Video Files example essay topic

FILE SHARING Ethical Debate with Today's Technology (INTRO) You may have illegal content on your computer right now! File sharing has become a very large issue today in society even though it has existed for decades. It has been the recent advances in our technology that has made it main stream and in the eyes of the general public. File sharing today tests the limits of technology along with our ethics making it a fuzzy grey area.

When discussing file sharing's effect on society, first you should have a brief understanding about the terminology, technology, and methods that are used. File sharing in its simplest form is 'anything that allows the swapping of files (audio, graphic, animation, etc) between users across a network. ' The breakdown of file sharing can be lumped into two basic categories, physical and virtual. Since the invention of the cassette tape, back in 1962 (about. com), people have been transferring data.

Friends would copy a tape they borrowed or purchased from another friend and the chain was never ending. When the camcorders started to get smaller and more affordable movies would be bootlegged from the theater and sold. Technology today has changed immensely but still we find ourselves in the same habits of sharing. Friends can now burn CDs within 5 minutes and DVDs within an hour. The one thing that has changed is the ability to protect the media using encryption keys, water marks, and other Digital Rights Management (DRM) that prevents the media from being copied.

The overall effect from this is the average person is left with the headache of not being able to do what they want with their own media, while the pirate er continues to hack and bypass security measures. The biggest contributor to file sharing these days is through software using virtual media. Before with the virtual media, the only way you could get something was if someone you knew had it. Now with the power of the web a user can find what they want from anyone around the world.

The internet is probably the most basic form using websites and emails. One of the earliest forms of sharing came from Internet Chat Relay (IRC) which is still used today. IRC's initial use was for chat but users realized files could be stored on the servers hosting the chat rooms and this opened a whole new world. Today the most common forms of file sharing is done through centrally indexed exchanges and peer to peer exchanges.

A centrally indexed exchange is based on a client server network model. This simply means that the client software logs into the network and tells the server all the files you are sharing and where you are located. When a search is performed it is the server that is queried and will return the address of who has the requested files. Some examples of centrally indexed exchanges would be Napster, i Mesh, i Tunes, and Scour Exchange.

A peer to peer exchange is similar to a centrally indexed exchange because you must use a software client to log into the network. The main difference is there is not an indexed server. Each client also acts as a server in this type of exchange. When a search is done each client is asked individually.

Some examples of a peer to peer exchange would be KaZaA, Morpheus, Overnet, and e Mule. Naturally each technology has both its strengths and weaknesses over the other. In a centrally indexed exchange searches are performed extremely fast and content can be verified by the server. The down side is security and lack of privacy is low, without a server there is no network, and at high volumes servers will bottleneck. In a peer to peer exchange searches are much slower, they are harder to use and configure, and content is not checked.

However peer to peer makes up for these weaknesses by providing content quicker for downloads, more secure and anonymous, and the ability to run without a server as long as there are at least two clients connected. (ETHICS) Despite the pros and cons of file sharing, whichever outweighs the other, many individuals feel that the question of the legalization of file sharing comes down to the issue of ethics. This can be argued by both who support or oppose of file sharing, each side bringing up significant points for their stance. Some view file sharing as an act of theft, infringing upon copyrights of the artists and damaging their albums in total sales. However, studies have shown conflict with this opinion of the opposing side. This research concluded file sharing did not negatively affect the sales of CDs.

The researchers found that only the less popular artists suffered very little where as the most popular were actually positively affected by having their downloads attribute to the increase of their album sales. The research done was done so with the intention for a better accuracy of the statistical facts of file sharing, if it indeed damaged the market of album sales in turn hurting the artist. The study wasn't done by survey of random selection, but was approached by tapping into the actual file-sharing servers. Some considered file sharing to damage one's earned fortune is definitely not ethical, but according to this study, this act is simply not done. However, file-sharing does contribute to the artists's uc cess. Is the complaint from people who say that file sharing is stealing and damaging, valid?

According to the outcome of this seemingly more accurate study, no, because it negates these individuals' claim. So, with this knowledge, why is file-sharing still not legal? Copyright infringement is undoubtedly an issue. The written laws are still the same age as they have been since their originality. There are points that are brought up by some, by argumentative means about the copyright laws conflicting with the rights of the individual. In this respect, some people feel that their rights are being violated by anti-file-sharing laws.

If they have an album in their possession, they feel they should have the right to do with it whatever they please. This belief is not valid according to the law. The law enforces its stance by basically not giving the purchaser full ownership of the material purchased. A consumer may buy the music, but not sale or give the actual item itself or a copy to anyone else who has not paid for the product.

Does this law violate the rights of individuals? The individuals buy the music with the intention that they now have full control and ownership of the item they purchased. Another concern that deals with the topic of the ethics of file sharing is of course the penalties enforced upon people who participate in file sharing and are caught. In some cases, they are heavily penalized by the government by paying enormous fines and / or serving a long term in prison. Suppose an individual steals a company's sensitive information and shares the data with someone who could use the data to severely damage the company it belongs to. This can be considered malicious intent and most likely carry a judicial ruling of a heavy sentence.

Others argue that some of the penalties brought down on people who share files are completely ludicrous in comparison with the lighter sentences of other crimes that are sometimes violent crimes against another human. Both sides bring up interesting and valid points to the ethical issue of penalties inflicted on file sharing individuals. Ultimately it comes down to one thing, whatever is written in the law, are the ways we must abide by regardless of our beliefs. So, for the common good, should the laws of file-sharing remain as they are, or should they be changed? (LAW) However the sharing of music and video files is done, there are those who feel that it is an illegal infringement on the rights of the creator of those rights. The following is an excerpt from the Federal law on copyrights: The Copyright Act Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. SS 106, and subject to the exceptions set forth in 107 through 121, the owner of copyright has the "exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

The language contained within may seem archaic from a technological standpoint, but the argument of it's application to file sharing persists. Perhaps the most famous case against file sharing involved The Napster company. Napster wasn't the only file sharing service at the time, they were just the first to fight the recording industries accusations. Gnutella, Imesh, and Scour Exchange were other services available at the time. In 2000, a year after the company began, A&M records brought a copyright infringement suit against Napster. Although the recording industry admitted that the accused did not, itself, make or distribute any of the copyrighted works, they came up with an "argument of contributory and vicarious infringement".

They claimed that because some of Napster's users had distributed and reproduced copyrighted music without authorization, there was evidence for direct infringement. They also claimed that Napster had knowledge of infringement based on internal company e-mails and a list of 12,000 infringing files submitted by RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). The court also defended the vicarious infringement as Napster had right and ability to control (regulate users) and that the company received financial benefit. Napster lost the case.

The court defined reparations that Napster should make in order to remain in operation, but the company had filed bankruptcy during the proceedings. Another blow to file sharing services came with the case against Aim ster in 2003 that found the company guilty of engaging in activities that demonstrated clear knowledge of infringing activities. After this defeat to sharing, cases that followed showed a trend in interpretations of copyright infringement favoring the services. The case of MgM vs. Grokster involved Grokster, Morpheus and Kazaa. They faced the same charges of contributory and vicarious infringement that Napster was accused of, however, legal interpretations as well as the architecture of these services had changed.

Because of the decentralized architecture of these services, the court found that they were not capable of controls over users to limit infringement. The court also accepted the Betamax defense which said that companies offer software that enables peer-to-peer communication without actually managing the virtual networks the software creates. The defense uses a stand just like the one Sony took in the 1980's when it fought copyright-infringement claims aimed at its then-new VCR all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and won. At that time, the Supreme Court justices ruled that Sony's VCR had many non-infringing uses and refused to prohibit the sale of the devices. With this recent victory, the recording industry has developed another approach.

Although they have appealed this particular decision, their new tactic is too gop after the end user themselves. Since the legal proceedings against Napster brought the issue to the forefront of current events, the legal battle over the interpretations of copyrights continues. (FACTS) Based off the studies Professor Felix Oberholtzer-Gee of Harvard Business School and Professor Kole man Stumpf of University of North Carolina "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales - An Empirical Analysis", sharing digital music files has no effect on CD sales. Profound and significant research and analysis of internet file sharing activities and CD sales during the 2nd half of 2002 was investigated and scrutinized for complete accuracy. During this period, three million simultaneous users shared 500 million files on the popular network FastTrack and KaZaA. Studies show that most people who shared files appear to be individuals who would not have bought the albums that they downloaded.

After a comprehensive analyst and number crush, the professors presented a pessimistic statistical model of CD sales vs. File Sharing. It takes 5000 downloads to reduce the sales of an album by a single copy. Therefore, 2 million copies would not have been sold in 2002. Actual CD sales declined by 139 million copies from 2000-2002.

Effects of filing on sales depends on the popularity. There was a slight negative effects with albums that had sales of less than 36,000 copies. However, the albums with sales of more than 600,000 copies (top 25%) had a positive effect. Statistic shows for every 150 downloads, sales increased by one copy. "This effect is particularly important because the profitability of the music industry depends almost entirely on the success of the most popular albums". Research also shows that out of 680 popular albums (with an average sells over 150,000 copies), more than 50% of the songs on the albums are never downloaded.

75% of the songs are downloaded no more than two times, and 90% are downloaded fewer than 11 times. The study finds marketing strongly influences what people download and what they buy. Evidence shows that the industry's marketing campaigns continue to influence what people listen to. Music video television, radio stations, and movies all have a huge influence the amount of downloads and the legal sales of that release.

File sharing is not just in United States. Even though we have the largest number of file sharing, we only make up of 31% of all individuals who download music. Germany and Italy running 2nd and 3rd with 13% and 11%. Japan and France running right behind with an additional 15%. While the US are particularly active and represent 31% of worldwide users, they only download 36% of all files which only 45% of those files come from other US computers. A legal strategy that focuses mostly on the US is unlikely to change the supply of music files.

"Previous studies have relied on Surveys to assess the effect of the file sharing on the music sales. This is problematic because it is impossible to know if survey participants truthfully respond to questions about an illegal activity. This study is unique in that it uses data from file sharing servers, where the authors directly observed 1.75 million downloads during 17 weeks in the fall of 2002. Using statistical methods, they can then test if the sale of an album declines more strongly if that album is downloaded more often". (CONCLUSION) So, even with the pros / cons, copyright laws, ethics, and facts; is file sharing an illegal crime, and one that deserves the heavy penalties as those serious crimes?

Is it unethical to give a friend a copy of a favorite CD as a gift? To give something of yourself? Is file sharing an illegal infringement in the rights of the creator of those rights? Artist hasn't loss money in CD sales due to file-sharing. The fact is that file sharing has increased sales of CD due to its popularity.