File Sharing

Is file sharing ethical?

It’s clear that file sharing is not legal – under almost every legal system, it is a form of theft – but the morality of an action is not determined by its legal status (although the silent majority do tend to adhere to the letter of the law as a matter of course). Laws eventually conform to ethics, so if file sharing can be deemed ethical, it is perhaps only a matter of time before it becomes legal. 

I’m going to assume that everyone knows what file sharing is – the use of peer-to-peer software to exchange media files (music, TV, films, games) with anonymous users, with no exchange of money.

Before exploring the controversial case that file sharing might be an ethical practice, we need to look at the case that file sharing is theft. The logic behind this is simple: somebody made the media that is being shared, they receive no money for this exchange therefore theft has occurred. 

Yet if we look back to before the era of file sharing, we can recall media sharing still taking place. In the age of audio cassettes, how many people can say they never recorded an album and gave it to someone, or made a compilation of tracks on a tape as a gift? These situations represent copyright theft under the law, but we did them anyway because of a strong intuition that this kind of gift giving was morally permissible. Crucially, when we gave gifts of this kind, no money exchanged hands, and the same is true in file sharing.

An argument can be made that the scale of exchange with file sharing makes it more serious than tape copying. After all, how many tapes did individuals give away? One or two? A dozen? A typical file sharer can provide hundreds even thousands of copies. The available data shows not only that CD sales have fallen since the onset of downloading, but also that the independent record stores have been hit the hardest, with about a quarter of such stores in the US closing in the last five years. 

This is clear evidence that there is a shift in the way people acquire music – but it’s not enough to conclude that file sharing is inherently immoral. The pony express went bankrupt with the invention of the telegraph, but that didn’t make the telegraph expressly immoral – it was simply the new communication paradigm invalidated the old one.

At root here is an unavoidable issue: people by and large find file sharing easier and more preferable to the old forms of media distribution. When the media corporations stamped down on the early file sharing companies like Napster, they drove file sharing underground – the opportunity was there to find a way to turn a profit from this new and popular activity, but afraid of the change they set their lawyers to try and plug the hole in the leaking ship. Now file sharing is more popular than ever. 

As long as there are legal ways of getting the benefits from file sharing – quick and easy access to a vast library of media – people will be willing to pay for these benefits. Illegal unpaid file sharing may seem an appealing option, but there is a price to be paid for unregulated file sharing: the files are often not what they seem, video files can be of a very low standard, and one is at the mercy of the tastes of internet geeks in terms of which files are available. Media corporations should be leveraging their commercial advantages – vast volumes of material people want – into profit from the new paradigm, rather than squandering their resources trying to defend the old ways.

When media corporations deny people access to material through greedy measures such as regionalisation (which prevents people in certain countries gaining access to certain media), they should not be surprised that people turn to other means to get their media. In Australia, the mod chipping of PS2s was deemed legal because so few games were released in the Australian market, having a mod chip that could bypass regionalisation was the only way for Australians to get hold of a great many games.

Security measures like DRM (digital rights management) which prevent one from copying files, or that withdraw access to a file when the user stops paying a subscription fee, will not work in the long term. These are restrictions over the media that we did not face with the old kinds of physical media, and we will not easily tolerate their enforcement now – companies must extend to us at least the rights we had before, and this includes the right to loan media and even to give copies to our friends. If the corporations won’t give the people this much, the people will simply take it for themselves. 

One of the more interesting aspects of the file sharing phenomena is that it has its own ethic: you are downloading material, but you are also sharing material with others. People are encouraged, at the very least, to leave files available for at least as long as they were downloading them. The terminology used has even become framed to discourage selfishness: the terms ‘seed and peer’ have become ‘seed and leech’, to emphasise the importance of leaving one’s file available to others after it has finished downloading.

Many people stand to benefit from file sharing. Musical artists who are not megastars struggle to get noticed in today’s fiercely competitive marketplace – having their music shared adds to an artist’s awareness, with the potential to increase attendance at gigs, and for some lucky bands to break through into the big time. I have purchased albums by artists whom I would never have heard of had a friend not downloaded their album and played it to me. Videogames which are designed to provide limited playability as a demo before being unlocked with a code to access the whole game are perfect for file sharing. Promotional TV shorts (such as the Battlestar Galactica webisodes) are tailor made for downloading. 

Ultimately, however, file sharing remains illegal, and unregulated file sharing must probably remain illegal necessarily, despite youth-oriented political campaigns in Sweden and elsewhere. This is not, however, an argument against the creation of legal file sharing or downloading networks, which are the only plausible defence media companies have against the commercial losses inherent in file sharing. I do not believe we are quite as close to the end of copyright as my colleague Ernest speculated in a Gamasutra article from 2005, but certainly we are in the middle of a dramatic transformation.

Is file sharing ethical? It's hard to make a case that it is, even assuming legitimate grievances against the media corporations, and in Kantian terms it seems to fail all three tests (it cannot be universalised, denies mutual respect, and is incompatible with communal autonomy). Conversely, the intrusion into people's personal data that is used to prosecute file sharers is not ethical in Kantian terms either, so neither party can truly claim to have the moral high ground on this issue.

The illegality of unregulated file sharing will not deter people from doing it, and attempts to dole out absurdly severe punishments for file sharing will only deepen people’s convictions that stealing from the media corporations is only barely immoral. A file sharer is not a burglar or a master thief who has stolen from neighbours and individuals; they have simply shared their media with strangers, and charged nothing for it. The media corporations remain substantially in profit.

In effect, file sharers are guilty of operating an unlicensed library. Personally, I find it hard to consider renegade librarians a threat to society. 

Comments

[Jack Monahan]

"Personally, I find it hard to consider renegade librarians a threat to society."

Easily one of the best quick summaries of the state of things I've ever read, Chris :)

Though what I find more interesting about the related issues of file sharing and overall data-glut our culture is going through is far less the legality/ethics of thing so much as what it means to live afloat that sea. I feel like already (and increasingly moreso for future generations as things intensify) advantages are skewing not for people who have access to data, but who can sort/sift/filter it best in their lives. Think of Google Earth, how any child in a library has access to geographical/photographical data that people would have gotten killed for to obtain in the past. So as a challenge in personal life (and to bring it back to the topic at hand), as someone who maintains a fairly large digital music collection, I have to balance what's available to me with what I can consume at a healthy rate.
BitTorrent means I can have the entire discography of Pink Floyd in hours or minutes--but can I or do I want to listen to all of that? :)

I'll see about a more directly on-topic reflection later... but always an interesting topic.

[Arto]

Nice to see you tackle this issue, not only because it is controversial and will probably to stay as such for a long time come but also because people tend to have rather black-and-white views of the subject. Usually divided to 'strongly against' of the media corporations and most people producing the media to 'definitely in favor' of the users of peer-to-peer-services.

People who have (moderately to well-paid) steady jobs seldom need to resort to downloading (if we exclude the said regional restrictions) as they have enough money to buy what they have time to consume. On the other hand, people with no source of income and more time on their hands tend to resort to cheaper methods of acquiring their entertainment, which they have more time to consume. Such people (often students) can be seen to be freeloading on media paid by others.
The question is: is that actually unethical?

Many contemporary societies (Finland, where I live, being an example) support such societal freeloading by law, giving social support to poor people, paid by the tax-payers. It would seem immoral not to do so.

Of course, there is a difference in not being able to buy bread to not being able to buy a new CD, but there's also the difference that a CD shared via p2p is not a CD actually removed from someones possession.

I don't think people are consuming less now than they were before p2p services, it may be they are consuming differently. This means that the corporations should seek new business opportunities, not cling to dying ones by lobbing new laws and prosecuting people who are just "renegade librarians" (what a splendid term! :)).

[Anon]

"Personally, I find it hard to consider renegade librarians a threat to society."

This concept of "renegade librarians" is funnily similar to The "Sean Kennedy Chronicles: Tales of the afternow" -- a spoken word story about a post apocalyptic future in which free speech has been outlawed.. In it, Kennedy calls himself an "independent librarian" at the beginning of every broadcast. He tries to document the truth and broadcast it illegally so that someone might hear it.
It's a fascinating tale, and very well told. I would tell you to check it out, but it's pretty long (3 "seasons")

Anyway .. in direct response to your post
I have frequently thought about the ethics of file sharing.. In how it relates to me as a person, based on what my father taught me, and also how I am going to approach it with my son when he comes of age.

Back in the late 80's when I was a child, my dad had a subscription to a company that let you rent 5 1/4" floppy disks with games and programs on them... He was excited to get a second disk drive for our 8088 at the time so that he could start making copies of the software. He basically taught me that by copying the software, we were "sticking it to the man".

Now that I've become an adult, I have examined the reasons why piracy or copyright infringement would be considered unethical. I understand why some would think that it is. But my crux is: "Would it be considered unethical for me, since my father taught me that it is not?" ...

A person's morals are usually a product of what is taught by the parents... The majority of people who subscribe to a particular religion do so because their parents taught them that religion.

My parents tried to raise me christian, and I ended up agnostic, so it would be hypocritical for me to use what my father told me as an excuse to make piracy ethical for me.

But I'm still on the fence about it as well ...

I have a 3 year old son.. Pretty soon, he will be old enough to understand that some of the DVD's he is watching didn't come from the store..

I am still struggling with how I should approach the topic with him..

Even though I have resolved with myself that it is at least "partially OK" to fileshare, the mere fact that I question its ethicality means that I think that there is at least a chance that it "might be unethical" ....

Which means, if I teach my son as my father did me, and tell him we are "sticking it to the man", I am knowingly teaching my son something that I think "might be unethical" ...

Would this not be wrong?

So ... I hope he doesn't ask the question for a while so I can have enough time to figure out how to approach it with him.

[Anon]

Also ! (sorry to double post)

I wanted to comment on another type of ethics related to filesharing, which you touched upon in your post...

"The obligation to seed"

This is a concept I wholly do not understand.
I think most people use filesharing because they want a copy of the work, not the other way around.. So why should you feel an "obligation" to have your bittorrent ratio be 1:1? (other than sites that ban you for leeching too much). You are not only wasting your own bandwidth, you are risking being caught by staying connected longer.

It almost seems like seeding or having a 1:1 ratio is a form of ethics itself.

Why should there be "ethics" to something "ethically questionable"?

I understand that the whole system of bittorrent relies upon sharing, and that without it, the system would break down,
but it seems ironic that in such a selfish world, people are being so "selfless" (putting themselves at risk of being caught just so they can have that ratio or be a seeder)

Personally I prefer obtaining material via methods that are not peer to peer. I'm in it for myself, not to help out anyone else.

It also seems like "distributing material" is generally deemed less ethical than simply "obtaining material". this has been imposed by law enforcement, and makes sense as without distributors, there would be no way to obtain anything.

P2P seems unnecessary to me. since you are doing both, you are putting yourself at risk unnecessarily.

[caller#6]

I do like the /term/ "renegade librarian". I don't think, though, that the comparison works. Publishers rely on their ability to maintain artificial scarcity. Libraries never really threatened that business model, or at least not in the way that file-sharing does.

[Peter Crowther]

The Internet is an almost perfect, almost free copying machine. File sharing is an Internet copying mechanism.

File sharing is copying. The issue is not whether file sharing per se is legal or ethical - I've downloaded (and uploaded) gigabytes of World of Warcraft patch using it, perfectly legally (and I would *hope* ethically). The issue is whether giving or receiving copies of others' work when they have said that you cannot is ethical. For those who know my rather personal view of ethics, the following is probably entirely unsurprising: it's fine, just be aware of what you're doing, why you're doing it, and the likely reprisals if you're caught.

[Chris]

I thought this might provoke some comments. :)

Jack: this issue of being adrift in data is coming into clearer focus for everyone, I think, as is the disparity between "haves and have nots" in the data age. This encouraged the British government (and others) to ensure everyone has internet access.

Arto: thanks for sharing your perspective here! I did consider making the poverty argument that you make here, but as you say, it's not quite that simple - we may agree that it's okay to steal a loaf of bread to eat, but does anyone really need to download every episode of The Simpsons? :) I'm glad that you brought it up, though, as it's certainly pertinent.

Anon: no need to apologise for double posting a comment - but it would be nice to have a name (or at least an alias) to associate with your viewpoint. :)

I found your intergenerational piracy story to be really fascinating - it will be interesting to see how you face up to this when the time comes.

In answer to your question: "Why should there be 'ethics' to something "ethically questionable"?" Well, ethics being relative, something can be unethical in a universal sense but still be ethical in reference to itself. "Honour among thieves", springs to mind. :)

Since file sharing depends upon people providing files to share, the social contract of the operation implies that it is ethical to share, and not just leech, and certainly many people who file share do feel an obligation to share.

Yes, you are taking a slightly greater risk, but really, it will be blind chance that causes anyone to be caught so this risk by itself doesn't seem to be enough to justify being a leech.

I think in many respects it is easier for people to justify file sharing when they participate in it for the group and not just for themselves.

caller #6: libraries don't threaten media publishers because they are small scale (one copy of each thing to share between a whole community) and usually get the media after everyone else. If libraries could distribute their media on the scale of file sharing, the publishers would be substantially more afraid of them! :)

Peter: "The issue is whether giving or receiving copies of others' work when they have said that you cannot is ethical." Yes, I hope this is implied in the piece. Obviously file copying is not inherently immoral. :)

But of course, this brings up even more questions: the media corporation owns the copyright of the music artist's work by contract. The music artist doesn't mind if you share the files (hypothetically). So here we have a situation where the creator of the work has no problem, yet there is still a legal restriction! Is it unethical to refuse to honour someone else's contract if there is no ethical restriction between you and the creator of the work?

To put it another way - is it ethical to download George Michael's music (who has said he is happy for people to do it) but not Madonna's (who has said the opposite)?

(This question doesn't apply to you, per se, but it's an interesting corollary to the original view).

Thanks for the comments everyone!

[Troy Gilbert]

Very interesting. You're quite right, Chris, that the debate is made more interesting by the fact that the role of "victim" in this contractual crime is at various times both parties. The RIAA rightfully asserts that copyright and their legal contracts forbid file sharing, and it is quite clear (to me, at least) that grabbing an album from a peer-to-peer network for free instead of purchasing it through Amazon is "theft" in some since. Yet the RIAA's tactics for fighting this situation turns the "criminals" into victims.

One could look at what the RIAA does like this: if the punishment for breaking *any* law, regardless of motive or outcome, was death, then to break any law is to break them all. In other words, if we treat people who are closer to the "sharing" end of the spectrum like the folks closer to the "pirating" end of the spectrum, we render the distinction useless, which is what ultimately clouds the issue.

[dj i/o]

Hi Chris! I am the one who posted the story about "intergenerational piracy".. I was logged in when I did, so I don't know why it changed the "posted by" back to anonymous... Anyway, my name is Scott, I go by the alias "dj i/o" and I've been reading your site for about 6 months now... I plan on posting more regularly soon :)

[dj i/o]

Maybe it can't handle the forward slash in my name? I don't know.
Another thing I'd like to mention:
I am on the lower end of the income scale, but I and several of my friends do still purchase works from artists and developers that we like. We use sharing more like a "try before you buy" system instead of outright "get it all for free!"

[caller#6]

"is it ethical to download George Michael's music but not Madonna's?"

But in these cases the "artist" has given up (sold) the legal right to control distribution of his/her, um, "art".

The publishers/distributors want to make those entertainments available under certain terms to paying customers (only). Shouldn't they have the right to do so? Shouldn't they have the right to offer whatever license they wish (within reason)? Is it ethical to dictate to them the terms simply because technology has outpaced their distribution model?

If the terms of that license are unacceptable, wouldn't the ethical response be to look for different licenses?

[Chris]

Troy: I agree with your assessment here; the RIAA totally shot themselves in the foot by coming down so forcefully. It makes it much easier to sympathise with the file sharers when the "opposition" behave so heavy handedly.

dj i/o: thanks for sharing a name! I don't know why TypePad didn't take it, but I have filled it in for you. ;) And I know what you mean about "try before you buy" - in fact, for music, given that the artist makes most of their money from either touring or whoring out their music to advertisers, I wonder if there isn't a commercial argument in favour of music sharing from the artist's perspective.

caller #6: "Shouldn't they have the right to offer whatever license they wish (within reason)? Is it ethical to dictate to them the terms simply because technology has outpaced their distribution model"

This is a brilliant take on the issue! But the key point here is "within reason" - when the media corporations are offering terms that are not reasonable (i.e. that do not respect the rights we had prior to digital distribution) is this not a case for opposing them?

I completely agree that the ethical thing to do is to look at alternative licenses - but the media corporations don't seem interested in doing so. And while they are not willing to co-operate, I'm not going to think too ill of the people who decide to do an end run around them.

Thanks again for the comments everyone!

[Sankofa]

it seems most people here consider themselvees thinking freely here so they will understand when i ask

Is NOT sharing of information ethical?

[Chris]

If lying can be ethical (which I believe) then plausibly it can be ethical not to share information. Consider, as an example, the tricks of stage magicians. It would certainly be unethical for a magician's assistant to violate their oath and reveal their secrets.

More pertinently to the issue of file sharing, if sharing something for free has negative economic impact on someone else, one can also make a case under Kantian terms that one has failed mutual respect by ignoring the other party's end (to make money).

In the broader case, if everyone gave movies away for free, there would be no movies (or so the common argument goes) - but I have to say, having seen the sheer volume of product placement in the big blockbusters, I wonder if we couldn't have a film economy based solely on product placement. :)

Best wishes!

[Sankofa]

I apologize for the harsh tone in my earlier post, must've had a bad day.

You took it up well though so thank you for that, i mostly just wanted to point out the many ways a question/proposition can be asked and for an issue to be judged in all fairness we need to see the implications.

[Sammas]

Heavily biased in favour of piracy, which I find disgraceful in a column purporting to be on the subject of ethics.

"Now file sharing is more popular than ever."

Your implication is that this is because the big bad record companies drove file-sharing underground. Yet access to the internet has increased, the technology is easier to use, and the level of technological literacy has increased among the general populace - all of which will increase the incidence of file-sharing.

"Illegal unpaid file sharing may seem an appealing option, but there is a price to be paid for unregulated file sharing:.."

You go on to describe problems with illegal file sharing which would cease to be problems if it were legalised. But in the same paragraph you use these negatives of illegal filesharing to explain why people would be willing to pay for legal filesharing.

The negatives of illegal filesharing are only negatives because companies "squander" resources trying to "defend the old ways" (according to you). If they didn't bother to fight against illegal filesharing, then they would be competing against a perfect substitute, effectively priced at zero.

"companies must extend to us at least the rights we had before, and this includes the right to loan media and even to give copies to our friends."

Why must they extend the rights people had before, in every medium?

"If the corporations won’t give the people this much, the people will simply take it for themselves."

The people that ignore ethical and economic principles will, yes. Others are more reasonable. Also, this problem doesn't just apply to corporations - it also affects (for instance) one-man indie game developers.

"One of the more interesting aspects of the file sharing phenomena is that it has its own ethic: you are downloading material, but you are also sharing material with others."

It costs filesharers very very little to share a file. It isn't like there is any kind of effort involved here - the only cost is borne by the providers of the internet infrastructure which has to bear the burden of massive filesharing networks.

"Many people stand to benefit from file sharing."

And they have the right to put their works up as shared files. You cannot use this as any kind of support for filesharing copyrighted material.

"A file sharer is not a burglar ... they have simply shared their media with strangers, and charged nothing for it. The media corporations remain substantially in profit."

By saying "shared their media" you imply some degree of ownership where there is none. And while file sharers charge nothing for sharing, they benefit enormously from the reciprocal arrangement where others share with them in turn. There is no altruism here.

The likening to "renegade librarians" is honestly unbelievable. Libraries pay for their content, licenses and subscriptions - providing some compensation for the work involved in producing the initial patterns.

The only explanation I can think of for the difference in this post to the reasoned discussions on other topics is cognitive dissonance. You must hold that you act ethically, at the same time as knowing that you file share copyrighted materials. This article is the result of trying to reconcile these two beliefs.

[Chris]

Sammas: thanks for your detailed critique here. I do think file sharing is unethical; I even say as much above. I just don't think this issue is a very serious problem compared to others facing our world.

"Why must they extend the rights people had before, in every medium?"

Simply because if they don't, the people will take it for themselves. To which you say:

"The people that ignore ethical and economic principles will, yes. Others are more reasonable."

As I say, I'm not saying that illegal file sharing is ethical, only that people will do it anyway, and the more that media companies try to block them with DRMs that make property claims disproportionate to the nature of the digital medium, the more people will sympathise with the file sharers.

You go on:

"Also, this problem doesn't just apply to corporations - it also affects (for instance) one-man indie game developers."

To such one-man indie game developers - which I'm going to hazard a guess and say you represent - I say: if you make your game unlock with a code, you can benefit from the digital distribution to spread the game and still recoup income on the back end.

Bitching about the unethical/uneconomic/illegal nature of the file sharing isn't going to stop it, so I suggest making it work for you.

"By saying 'shared their media' you imply some degree of ownership where there is none."

Remember the famous expression "possession is nine tenths of the law?" They have the files, the files belong to them in a certain sense, even if they do not have "just ownership" (legal ownership, if you prefer).

"The likening to "renegade librarians" is honestly unbelievable. Libraries pay for their content, licenses and subscriptions - providing some compensation for the work involved in producing the initial patterns."

It is the fact that people involved do not pay license fees and subscription costs that makes them *renegades*, but they are still operating something similar to a library. I don't think it's that unbelievable a comparison.

I don't see this piece is an attempt to rationalise my own cognitive dissonance; I'm quite happy to buy my own media, although I do download certain things namely (1) composite media unavailable through any other means, such as reconstructions of Doctor Who episodes where no surviving material exists, and (2) TV shows I already have legitimate access to (I appreciate that I screw the advertisers in this way, but I never watch advertisements anyway so I don't see this as a big problem).

I would also happily download media that a company had denied to me through the insidious practice of regionalisation, although I haven't yet done so.

I buy all my games, and most of my music, although I do accept gifts of music from my friends, just as I have done throughout my life irrespective of the medium.

Once again, thank you for your detailed critique. My position remains unchanged.

Best wishes!

[Sammas]

I think you're confusing the utility of file sharing with the practice of using it to illegally distribute copyrighted materials.

Nobody here is arguing for a general ban on file sharing, the argument is whether or not something should be done about the effortless distribution of copyrighted materials, and whether that practice is ethical.

So when you say indie game developers should make file sharing work for them, they already do. Distributing games in this way is efficient. But that doesn't mean they have to accept the way that other people use it to acquire the work of others at zero cost.

Your bio mentions that you are looking for a publisher. You even advertise books that you have been involved in. Would you have no problem with the free availability of those texts sans publishing/author information?

""It is the fact that people involved do not pay license fees and subscription costs that makes them *renegades*, but they are still operating something similar to a library.""

I'm sure the appellation appeals to the renegade merchants who broke into my flat a few years back.

And I still don't see a replacement explanation of how producers of digital goods are meant to compete against free substitutes in a future where filesharing is legal.

[Chris]

Sammas: thanks for coming back!

"Nobody here is arguing for a general ban on file sharing, the argument is whether or not something should be done about the effortless distribution of copyrighted materials, and whether that practice is ethical."

Well, we are in agreement that it's not ethical, it seems we only disagree on how important an issue file sharing piracy is.

"Would you have no problem with the free availability of those texts sans publishing/author information?"

How nice it would be to have work of sufficient interest for it to be pirated in this way. :) If that was the case, I would certainly be making money from my books from the far greater number of people who would be paying for them, rather than the peanuts I currently make.

And in the case of the book I'm looking to get published: I would gladly distribute it freely if I thought I would reach more people that way. Ideas are much more valuable to me than money. But ironically, because of the issue of "perceived value", I have to get the material into saleable form and put a price tag on it before it has any hope of distribution.

As for distributing without author information: does this happen? I've never heard of a book being pirated and the name of its author removed. Why would anyone bother?

I wonder if the difference in our positions relates to our perception of the extent of file sharing piracy: as far as I can ascertain file sharing of copyrighted material is a minority pursuit, and I support this claim in part by citing the enormous profits media corporations are claiming from the online space.

Also, the assumption that "shrinkage" from piracy is inherently a loss has been challenged by numerous people. Let me wheel out a favourite quote of mine from Chris Anderson:

"I was chatting with a former Microsoft manager the other day and he revealed that after much analysis Microsoft had realized that some piracy is not only inevitable, but could actually be economically optimal. The reason is counter intuitive, but intriguing. The usual price-setting method is to look at the entire potential market, from the many at the economic lower end to the few at the top, and set a price somewhere in between the top and bottom that will maximize total revenues. But if you cede the bottom to piracy, you can set a price between the top and the middle. The result: higher revenues per copy, and potentially higher revenues overall."

This is by no means the only argument advanced that piracy is not as serious as it is often perceived.

Most (but not all) pirates are poor. They don't have the money to buy the media they are stealing. Consequently, the argument that piracy represents "shrinkage" (loss of profit from theft) omits the issue of what proportion of the pirates could afford to buy the media they were stealing.

"I'm sure the appellation appeals to the renegade merchants who broke into my flat a few years back."

LOL! I take your point, but thieves committing breaking and entering *aren't* conducting the usual activities of a merchant. Now the fences who sold your stolen possessions *were* renegade merchants. :)

The bottom line for me is that digital distribution is going to become one of the main (if not the only) means of distribution, and the best defence against illegal sharing of copyrighted material is paid downloading services that people can use without guilt and with the promise of reliable high quality material, something illegal sharing of copyrighted material cannot provide - one of the risks of this form of piracy is that the files you get may be junk. I understand this is especially true if trying to pirate a movie.

Trying to crack down forcibly on file sharing pirates is counter productive: it makes the public sympathise more with the thieves than with the property owners! This is perhaps especially true right now, as the WGA's Writer's Strike drives home just how much profit media corporations are making from online media. If file sharing piracy has hurt their bottom end, they can certainly afford it.

Thanks once again for continuing our discussions!

[Sammas]

""as far as I can ascertain file sharing of copyrighted material is a minority pursuit"

You are sadly mistaken. File sharing of copyrighted material far far outweighs legitimate transfers, and somewhere around 30% of *all* internet traffic is from file-sharing. Data on this kind of thing is fairly easy to find from internet backbone providers like Sprint.

""and I support this claim in part by citing the enormous profits media corporations are claiming from the online space.""

That doesn't even follow. Any massively expanding industry creates supernormal profits which encourage competitors to enter the market. Note that neither large profits from large corporations, nor low incidence would be any defence against the charge of theft.

I see you've trotted out the "pirates wouldn't/couldn't buy anyway" and the "piracy can actually help" arguments.

We both know that pirates can afford *some* of what they take for free - they would just rather spend it on other things which they can't take for free, like alcohol for instance. And consider the damage done to substitutes - if I pirated Photoshop (which I can't afford), why would I pay/register PowerPaint (which I can afford)?

And regarding the effect of piracy, you might dispute the amounts, but it seems to me that it should be up to the owners of the data to decide whether piracy is beneficial to them. Saying that they aren't affected as badly as they say they are is only a difference of degree.

""the best defence against illegal sharing of copyrighted material is paid downloading services that people can use without guilt and with the promise of reliable high quality material, something illegal sharing of copyrighted material cannot provide - one of the risks of this form of piracy is that the files you get may be junk.""

I already showed why this is invalid. You argue that IP owners shouldn't try to crack down on illegal file sharing, but your alternative relies on this to make it effective. If media companies followed your advice, and did not persecute illegal file-sharers, then the quality of illegal shared files will obviously increase. Running a paid service against this would just be silly. So illegal file-sharers must still be persecuted to make your option viable.

You even acknowledge that illegal file-sharing cannot be universalised, but you try to blow this away by claiming that trying to enforce the law necessarily cannot be universalised (which is almost certainly untrue), so it's somehow ok.

We're not talking about anything that people really *need* here, as a reminder.

[Chris]

Sammas: thanks once again for continuing the discussion. I suppose the main thing I have to say in response at this time is by "minority pursuit" I mean that the number of people conducting file sharing piracy is less (probably significantly less) than the number of people who buy their media legally.

I accept the evidence you provide as support of your case that file sharing is a more serious problem than is often thought, but not that this evidence countermands my claim that it is a minority pursuit. I hope it is clear why I make this distinction.

Maybe this is the core of the dispute between us:

"You argue that IP owners shouldn't try to crack down on illegal file sharing"

No, I argue that IP owners should use appropriate measures to crack down on illegal file sharing, and that they should take the time to assess the situation rationally, and not jump to conclusions. Indicting children is great for shock value, rather lousy at achieving the intended goals.

I view the measures taken by the media corporations to prevent illegal filesharing as excessive and absurd: they may have just cause, but their actions are counter-productive to their goals. This is a common problem in our modern age.

You never convinced me that paid downloading services aren't the best defence against illegal downloading, I'm afraid; I'm short of time this morning, so alas I haven't the time to go through your prior arguments to see why you think you have made this case. If you want to continue the discussion, I suppose this is the point in your case that needs shoring up.

Also, please remember that I am not trying to say that "illegal file sharing is ok, go ahead and do it", but I am saying that this issue is so low on the list of problems worth addressing in the world right now that anyone (such as the media corporations) who behaves as if this is a tragic disaster of epic proportions does a poor job of addressing the problem.

Perhaps you would like to share what you think would be an effective solution to the problem, since you care about it considerably more than I do? I would be genuinely interested in how you think this issue might be pragmatically tackled.

Best wishes!

[Neil]

I think one of the issues here is that, despite there being supernormal profits, which encourages competition - the fact is that these days the internet is too fast at offering alternative solutions.

So, instead of there being no option but to wait for the competition to enter a market and bring prices down, the internet offers an alternative - downloads.

And in one sense this is a form of competition - just because the companies making supernormal profits (and I am guessing you know what supernormal profits are, and therefore (my view) their relative "unethicality" (hey I think Free Markets are a scam kept alive by fat cats and weak-willed govt.s)) make slightly less money - do you think this gives them legal rights to jackboot around and make like the world is ending?

Part of the problem is that corporations move very slowly - especially to adopt new markets and new ways of interacting with markets. That's fine. But to complain as much as they do when someone gets better than them at a new market is way out of proportion.

What they need to do is work out the best way of interacting with this new market (which would include ways of making buying legally easier and safer than downloading illegally) and get their act together.

I'm sorry but I find it hard to conflate stealing something which is not even a physical item, and is victimless in the sense no-one is shot during the theft, with any form of personal theft or burglary - even with theft from companies.

I appreciate it is a crime, but then I am entitled to ignore the law if I do not agree with it and take my chances.

I would much rather see the level of urgency and effort that goes into this form of anti-piracy used to help eliminate other forms of crime which are more harmful - like drink-driving or whatever.

[Chris]

PS: I remembered why you thought you had dismissed my claim about legal downloading services: you argued that a free service couldn't compete with a pay service. This argument, however, is too shallow.

Here are the many competitive advantages which would allow a paid service to win out in the marketplace:

1. Legality. The paid service is legal. This is a huge factor - half the people in the UK (for instance) believe they have never broken any law and are proud of the fact. In the US, the number might be higher. Not being illegal is a selling point that the illegal service can never offer.
2. Quality. Illegal downloading is a crap shoot; legal downloading guarantees quality.
3. Speed. Illegal downloading has a minimum lead time of 24 hours or so for TV, audio etc; for movies, even longer (except when DVD screeners are stolen or otherwise come into public possession). Legal services can offer material at the moment of release.
4. Variety. Illegal downloading is access to the collective library of internet geeks. If it isn't of interest to internet geeks (especially those in the US), you can't get it this way. A legal system would not have this restriction, and thus would be genuinely mass market.
5. Convenience. Using the illegal downloading services takes time and effort; a paid service offers quick and convenient service - with added technical support.

For all these reasons, I believe that quality paid downloading services will win out in the marketplace over free but illegal services.

I look forward to reading your reasons for disagreeing with this. ;)

Best wishes!

[zenBen]

Tax.

Indirect payment methods like an internet tax would be far more efficient than direct billing for product. Not everyone can have a credit card.
And once bandwidth gets to fiber-to-your-door level, there will be no point in downloading to store, you may as well stream everything.

So in the future, I imagine that your binary argument will be moot - but I don't think one service needs to 'win out' over the other. They co-exist already!

[Sammas]

Chris:

Seems like we're going round in circles here. Basically, you accept that file sharing against the owner or creator's permission is unethical and not universalisable.

You conclude that it's not really a big problem though. But then it's hardly an onerous task *not* to break those ethical borders, is it?

Regarding free vs paid downloading services, fundamental economic theory backs my argument up - the onus is on you to show why this case is different (and why the very intelligent people working for IP companies haven't figured this out). Quick run-through though:
1. You're making up numbers - where does 'half the people in the UK' come from? Neil here is happy to "take his chances" (where the chances of being caught are effectively nil). It would be great if laws didn't need to be enforced to be effective, but this is not the case.
2. Quality costs money to create, and the gains are wiped out when the quality production is ripped out and distributed. One of the reasons illegal downloading can be annoying is because Media companies invest considerable effort in polluting large file-sharing networks. This increases costs for their products even more.
3. Illegal downloads are often available prior to commercial release, and skip time barriers such as censors and trade regulations for different countries.
4. I really don't know why you would think this. There is a huge variety out there - you can download pretty much any movie or song you can think of. If media companies weren't pouring money into fighting illegal downloading (which makes their products even less price-competitive), even more would be available.
5. Convenience is a factor, but for people who aren't wealthy tech-illiterates, the cost-benefit doesn't stack up.

I think Neil sums up the illegal downloader thing pretty much.

""But to complain as much as they do when someone gets better than them at a new market is way out of proportion.""

The problem is this "someone" didn't put any work into it. They just distributed the hard work of others in return for similar things.

""I appreciate it is a crime, but then I am entitled to ignore the law if I do not agree with it and take my chances.""

So everyone is "entitled" to ignore the law if they do not agree with it, like murderers? You take your chances because those odds are so good (free-loading with infinitesimally small odds of being caught).

In any case I've seen all of these statements a thousand times before, trying to defend what is an indefensible practice. But to do it on a site that often flies Kant's banner is sacrilege.

[Bezman]

Zenben - "there will be no point in downloading to store, you may as well stream everything."

By storing media though, you are virtually guaranteeing future access to it. If you rely on streaming, you are relying on hosting companies etc. to continue providing their service.

Sammas - "We both know that pirates can afford *some* of what they take for free - they would just rather spend it on other things which they can't take for free, like alcohol for instance."

A common argument, but the just-as-common counterargument is that people do buy some of what they can afford - after having been convinced of its quality. A similar model of course already existed in bookshops where people are free to thumb through an entire book if they so choose or music stores where people could listen to the album before making the purchase.

Really though, arguing either side of this single point without evidence seems more like arguing over which personal experience is 'correct' rather than a legitimate argument over opinions or asking others to consider a new viewpoint.

Equally great amounts of 'circumstantial evidence' could probably be brought up to support both sides, with no resulting enlightenment ensuing.

[Bezman]

Sammas - "There is a huge variety out there - you can download pretty much any movie or song you can think of."

Looking at certain top-10 lists of the year (namely the ones supplied by the webcomic authors of Questionable Content or Scary-go-Round) it was found that over half the albums were unavailable to download as a torrent.

Though Madonna's latest album will probably always be available for download, there is a great wealth of smaller-name artists whose work will be available via Amazon at a minimum (and often at a bricks-and-mortar shop) but has not been 'seeded'.

Not that that point affects the issue of whether piracy can be argued to be ethical. I just wanted to correct a seemingly common misconception.

[Neil]

"Neil: "I appreciate it is a crime, but then I am entitled to ignore the law if I do not agree with it and take my chances."

Sammas: "So everyone is "entitled" to ignore the law if they do not agree with it, like murderers? You take your chances because those odds are so good (free-loading with infinitesimally small odds of being caught).""

Yes, everyone *is* entitled to ignore the law. This is the start of civil disobedience which is hugely important in change for democracies as well as other forms of governance.

If enough people decided murder was something the law should be changed on, I would expect to see more and more people flouting the law until general consensus saw to a change.

I doubt highly this would happen with murder, but then such an extreme option was presumably used by you as an example, as opposed to a reasoned argument.

You also ignore the fact that you used supernormal profits as a justification for something when supernormal profits are an economic wastage. In a "free market" economy the supernormal profits should be seen as a sign that a market needs competition (ie demand outstrips supply). Well, part of the joy of getting supernormal profits from a market is the sure knowledge that it will not last as others will pour into your market to claim a piece of the pie.

If you have chosen a market with unforeseen holes in it (e.g. the idea that illegal file sharing would take place on the internet and undermine media markets) this is simply a price to pay. To turn around and say "we aren't getting paid too much money anymore, boo hoo" is simply not relevant. Even more annoyingly, this argument is moot because this sort of media leak was already in place on the internet before the large companies got in and started using the online space from which the supernormal profits have been garnered.

So, even more ridiculous to side with the corporations who cannot do simple homework and foresight into a market already beset with the issues now being complained about.

It's like they thought that Napster was the only place to share files, and once that was closed all the media companies sighed with relief and got on with milking people.

None of this is to do with illegality, but the (often) more important role of corporations in our lives and our economy. We are headed down a dangerous path letting companies and shareholders tell us what is right and wrong.

[Chris]

Sammas: I agree that the discussion has become circular; this is because nothing new has been brought in. If you want to advance your position, you need to cite a viable measure that can be taken as an alternative to my suggestion to shore up and support legal services. When you have a suggestion, I'll be happy to discuss it.

Also, while I apologise for not always citing my sources, it is extremely impolite of you to assume I do not have them. The 50% figure comes from 2006 surveys conducted in the UK to investigate the issue of data privacy. It transpired that just over half (I think it was 51% but I don't have the data on hand) weren't concerned about the government having unlimited access to private data because "they had nothing to hide". As I say, a little over half of the populace in the UK believed that they never broke the law, and therefore backed government intrusion into private data on the basis that the only reason you would want your data privacy protected was because you were a criminal.

Oh, and you can't trot out economic rules and use them like fundamental tenets, especially in the online space when the market is still emerging. Economic rules are observed tendencies, and subject to change when the rules of the game change.

If we want to resolve this issue as a matter of fact, both you and I will have to wait ten years or so and see what happens. I'm game if you are. ;)

It's true that I have become a great supporter of the Kantian project, but when I look at this issue I see failure of both mutual respect and communal autonomy on both sides - and for me, supporting the individual over the commercial bloc is closer to Kant's ideals. If you believe otherwise, that is your right, but don't question my commitment to Kant because I sympathise with those who break the law in this case over those who violate Kant's ideals while remaining within the law (i.e. media corporations). The law of the state is not the basis of morality - the relationship here should be precisely inverse.

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to chew into this issue so vigorously, as no-one else has put up such a staunch defence of the opposing camp. But now, both you and I will perhaps have to wait and see how this situation develops to know who is closer to the facts of the matter.

Thanks again!

Bezman: many thanks for your level-headed interjection here. I particularly appreciate that you had some data on the availability of files through illegal downloading:

"Looking at certain top-10 lists of the year (namely the ones supplied by the webcomic authors of Questionable Content or Scary-go-Round) it was found that over half the albums were unavailable to download as a torrent."

And that's material that is *current*. The situation gets worse the further back you go.

I did some fishing on this a while back; I was planning to download TV shows that I have on videocassette, since this is easier than transferring it myself. Of all the TV shows I had on tape, only Friends and Deep Space Nine were available for download. Even the Kids in the Hall wasn't available, and I would expect that to have internet geek appeal!

And consider films: you can get most of the Humphrey Bogart and Alfred Hitchcock movies online, but try getting obscure B-movies like Deathstalker 2, or older films with less famous directors and actors, and you will draw a great blank.

No-one I know of has done a detailed survey, but it seems clear to me that the torrents in circulation are all either recent, popular, or popular with internet geeks.

I for one would love to subscribe to a download service where I could go to get documentaries and older TV shows. But no such option is yet in place. When it is, I will be delighted to pay for it.

zenBen: I'm conflicted on things like internet tax. I like the free internet - but boy, would I like to ditch the spam. ;)

Neil: Great statement of your position here... It strikes me that it would be more fruitful for you and Sammas to continue discussion (if so desired) than for me to do so, as I really have nothing more to add, and as Sammas correctly states, I'm going around in circles now.

Thanks to everyone for opening this up again - we got a lot further into the issues this second time around.

Okay, I have to go and put up "Ethics of War" now... This is an issue much closer to my heart...

Best wishes, and thanks to you all for getting involved!

[zenBen]

"By storing media though, you are virtually guaranteeing future access to it. If you rely on streaming, you are relying on hosting companies etc. to continue providing their service."

I disagree Bezman. Entropy affects all.
Only a complete n00b would believe that their personal storage capability will be 100% indefinitely reliable.
The question then is, which bet do you take? The stability and longevity of a server company, or your own infallibility?