What are your thoughts on "illegal" fire sharing?

Hmmm...never heard of fire sharing. How's that done?

Yeah...I share fire all the time. I light candles and hand the lighter to someone else. It's easy!



I think you mean illegal file sharing though and that I'm not against, exactly, but I don't do it.

..

I thought that too at first...like the word file was misspelled in the title. But when I saw the word fire in the actual post, I thought otherwise.

Illegal? Like it burns down people's houses?

Hmmm.... I thought "fire" in place of "file" was a fairly obvious play on words, both in its chiding of the anti p2p crowd, and in its acknowledgement of the dangers of downloading illegally.

Ah ha....however, I am an "under a rock dweller"....

Well then, in that case, a thief is a thief whether they're stealing money, cars, or music.

I disagree, since the former two hurt the "victim", the last doesn't.

p2p file sharing is legal in canada (last time i checked anyway) so it's not illegal for me. it wouldn't make a difference either way though. However if I really enjoy a particular artist I will buy the album to support them.

Who do you think the victim is in the case of illegally downloaded music?

P2P file sharing is legal in the U.S. too if you're sharing files that you have the legal right to share.

No one, really, and that's the point. Not buying a CD is not a form of harming the artist (or the record company).

well directly no, you're not breaking a window and taking money out of their homes, but by downloading the music rather than buying it you are hurting sales.

i don't see it as stealing but from a business point of view it's definately hurting the artists and record companies.

but it's unavoidable. that's why there really needs to be a push on things like itunes where you can pay to download a song or album. i've downloaded albums off of itunes when what i wanted was available. if what i want is not on itunes i will download it elsewhere for free if need be. or if i just want one song i will dl for free. if i like the artist and want to support them i will download the album on itunes, it's cheaper than buying in stores and still supports the artists, and creates less packaging and waste. i think it's a brilliant idea and more artists/labels need to make their albums available.



also i listen to japanese music and it's not readily available in north america. if i have a choice i will buy the album legally, on amazon or cdjapan or whatever, but often imports are horribly overpriced. when i was desperate for a couple of albums i really wanted and couldn't afford to pay $50 each, i checked ebay. i found them, bought them, and when i got them i realized they were bootlegs. i felt so bad, because i want to support the artists and i want to increase the demand for their music in my country so they will release future albums here where i can get them more easily. buying bootlegs solves nothing. so now if i can't get a sealed legal copy i buy them used on ebay and only buy ones that state on the auction that they are legal copies by --- label. i'd rather buy new to increase demand but if i can't get them legally i can at least buy a used copy and be confident that i am not supporting bootlegging.



it's a tricky business, and what it comes down to for many people is availablility. i'd say most people who buy or download music regularly at this point have mp3 players, it only makes sense for artists/companies to make changes to keep up with the technology and trends.

like Radiohead has. i'm not a big fan by any means but i love the idea of selling their albums privately online. setting our own prices, well some people won't pay anything and some people will pay full album prices or more to help support the band, so without a record company taking a chunk of the profits, it probably balances out pretty well in their favour. i don't know what the sales figures were on it but i think it's a cool idea

I'm not sure about the mystery country you live in but in ther U.S. it's established law that there is a victim and that's the record company and, by extension, the songwriter and performer.



Would you use the same reasoning for ebooks and digital art?

But whether you download the music or just don't like the music, the end result is the same: you don't buy the music. That in itself is not a way of harming.



What if you can't afford the music and you can only afford illegal downloads? In that case you wouldn't be buying the music anyway, so your downloading doesn't affect sales even compared to a hypothetical scenario.




The OP asked one's thoughts about illegal file sharing. That it is illegal isn't a very relevant thought since it's already given in the question. The more interesting question is about the morality of it -- or, should file sharing be unlimited/legal.




I dunno. I don't think you need to own books, especially fiction, since you can borrow them from the library when you need to read them. Whereas you may want to listen to music regularly and whenever you like. I'm not sure about digital art.

I use p2p filesharing networks to try things out. Someone says I should check out a tv series so I'll download a few episodes. If I like it, I'll go out and buy the series on DVD. Same with music. If I hear a band on the radio, I'll download a few tracks and if I like them I'll buy a CD or a few songs as most of the MP3s out there are of lower quality than the ones you can make yourself from a CD.

I belive file sharing is perfectly acceptable, it makes music readily avalible for all and what's wrong with that?



In my experience it's actually given the opportunity for lesser known mainstream artists to sell more and become more known. It's also made music more global. For example now an artist thats well known in say Australia has their music avalible to people worldwide who otherwise wouldn't come accross it. I tend to download a fair few tracks from an artist in order to see if i actually like them before purchasing an album. If an album or artist is rubbish from my downloading of a few tracks i won't buy the album. Of course no matter what happens artist and evil record companies don't really benefit from my purchasing as i always buy CD's second hand, but as someone who loves phycial CD's i will always buy an album even if i've already downloaded it.



I hate the commercialised nature of the music industry today and to me file sharing and the internet in general helps break this mould. In some respects it hasnt changed much from my parents childhood. I've heard tales of my dad sitting listening to radio 1 and the top 40 on a sunday, recording the tracks he liked and sharing them with friends, file sharing is just a more developed method of the same.



The only downside I find to the internet is I tend to find lots of artists I really like a year or so before everyone else and then they become popular. I hate this!

the end result isn't in question. i could conk someone on the head, and take a book or dvd. doesn't make it right.



the question is, what does the artist/distributor want? do they want you to copy the music, or not? it's the owners choice, not yours or mine. and that's the way i'd want it to be if I were distributing my own work.. my choice, my terms. if i want you to copy it at will, i'd let you know. i'm guessing you'd feel the same way.

That would constitute both physical harm and the harm of taking away something the person had, thus preventing him/her from enjoying those products, thereby lessening his/her overall "quality of life".




They want me to buy every CD they've ever made, and preferably buy many copies of each album so I can give them to my friends so they get to know the artist too and buy his/her albums. Going simply by what the artist wants doesn't work.

Funny how a few weeks ago pkk seemed to hate it when people pointed out that something s/he agreed with was illegal, yet now it's suddenly an acceptable argument.



Stealing and copying without legal rights are not the same thing.

My pointing out the legality of file sharing vs the illegality of copyright infringement was simply that. I don't mind people sharing files. I just don't approve of thievery - whatever the form.

Copying is not thievery. It's not taking anything, merely replicating it. I don't think it even has the same laws applied to it, which is something, considering the authorities are so ready to call it stealing.

IF anyone is getting screwed by illegal file sharing, it's the record companies, not the poor starving artist. Record companies do a much better job of screwing them over than the consumer ever could. And I have no sympathy for big record companies whatsoever.

Because you're not fond of an industry doesn't change things. I'm not a fan of the oil industry but if I take a barrel of it without paying for it, it's still thievery.

What part of copying vs. taking do you not understand?

Nothing. I completely understand it.

Evidently not, as you continue to equate one to the other.

This thread is about illegal file sharing via P2P software. Here's reliable information on the law pertinent to that subject:



http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html