Community poll forum: Is file-sharing programs' only purpose to illegally trade copyrighted materials?

I just don't see the difference in downloading music from the internet or recording music from the radio or recording a movie off cable. If you are not using any to make money, then what is the problem. If none of these were meant to be downloaded or recorded, then we should not have been able to have such products to be able to do so. We are taught as children that sharing is a good thing. The artists who have plenty of money need to just get over themselves. In this day and age where the cost of everything is going up and some people need to worry about paying the bills over buying an over priced CD. I know I have downloaded a song that I never heard before and realized that I liked it, and eventually bought the CD. So if it was not for being able to download the song, the artist never would have sold their CD to me. So it can as well be used as a way to generate more sales of the actual CD.

Recording music from the radio is also illegal if it is copyrighted material. The reason file-sharing is of more concern is that it is possible to get a copy of much higher quality than from a radio broadcast.

It is true that recording companies could provide a lower cost distribution method rather than fighting file sharing. Wouldn't you rather pay $0.10 or even $0.25 for a song and know it is the original rather than take your chances on a file-sharing network with the risk of a virus to boot! I certainly would.

file-sharing programs

>> If you are not using any to make money, then what is the problem. <<

There are legitimate sellers of the music out there, and you are getting their product without compensating them. Its cheating. Its getting something for nothing, which is indefensible.

>> If none of these were meant to be downloaded or recorded, then we should not have been able to have such products to be able to do so. <<

Huh? If Im ABLE to steal something, then its OKAY to steal it? If Im ABLE to shoot somebody, then its okay to shoot him?

>> We are taught as children that sharing is a good thing. <<

Yes, if little Johnny shares his toy firetruck, thats a good thing. If he reproduces the firetruck ten thousand times and nobody needs to buy a firetruck any more and it runs the toy store out of business, thats not good. See?

>> The artists who have plenty of money <<

Wow, every artist in the world is rich? Thats so cool! And isnt it great to have the authority to tell people when they have too much money? I can imitate my hero, Karl Marx.

>> some people need to worry about paying the bills over buying an over priced CD <<

Well, I dont think theyre over-priced, but these are just opinions. Anyway, if you cant afford a CD, then you dont deserve it. I cant afford a Mercedes, and Im not ENTITLED to one.

>> I know I have downloaded a song that I never heard before and realized that I liked it, and eventually bought the CD. So if it was not for being able to download the song, the artist never would have sold their CD to me. <<

There are legitimate ways to hear music for free, such as the 30-second clips at Amazon.com. Or some music stores have listening stations where you can hear the whole CD if you want, before deciding whether to buy. Or listen to a friends copy. But, sorry, none of these options gives you the ability to get a permanent copy for free.

>> So it can as well be used as a way to generate more sales of the actual CD. <<

I can use my shotgun to drive in nails and build houses for the poor, but the shotgun is designed to scare the life out of people, and possibly kill them. There are zillions of people out there getting free CDs. Its not right, sorry.

Ive downloaded music files myself in the past, but Ive never claimed it was ethical. Now I pay as I go.

wehn they want to have copyight for as long as they get it now they have to go douwn with the price of the product. Otherwise the copyright has to be max't at 3 year's.So they can bring it out in every posible way.It's old neuws after 3 year's.

>> There's not much of a difference between sitting at somebody's house, or in their car, and hearing a song they have on a cd or listening to the radio and saying "wow, I really like that song" and them making a copy of it for you to listen to, and having the same situation with a computer instead of a radio. <<

Both of those two situations are like stealing.

>> My mother taught me to share <<

Lending is sharing. Allowing somebody to steal is not sharing.

>> my church has taught me to love thy neighbor and to share the love <<

You should ask your priest of ministers opinion of downloading music and getting permanent copies of music for free. And you should take that advice.

Ive downloaded music files in the past, but I never claimed it was ethical. Now I pay as I go.

>> look at MTV Cribs, these artists or actors are rich on a giant scale <<

You think MTV Cribs reflects all artists and actors? LOL

>> think about brand new groups. They aren't going to afford publicity, so file sharing is a perfect way to get the word out about their new band <<

Voluntarily distributing files to be downloaded is fine. But what about people getting free CDs when they legitimate sellers dont want them to be free?

>> and there are always people who will buy at the store <<

And there are always people who dont pay, and they are cheating.

>> it doesn't hurt the artist <<

Wrong. See below.

>> Thes rich artists shold be giving to the poor or something <<

What makes you think they dont? LOL

>> rather than buying some Rolls Royce, wen you could get a nice honda or something <<

Now its good to tell people what to do with their money?? Wow.

Hey, that sucker who bought a Honda, he shoulda bought a bicycle! LOL

>> P2P doesn't hurt anyone <<

Wrong. See below.

>> in terms of music, I couldn't live without it <<

Wrong.

Downloading files is unethical because (1) it deprives the rightful sellers from getting the price of the product, and (2) you get a free CD/DVD without paying the price, which means you dont deserve it. If the sellers want to distribute their files for free, thats fine, and thats different from zillions of files being distributed against the wishes of the rightful owners. Capitalism (selling CDs) is good, excessive greed (thinking you deserve free CDs) is bad.

Pay as you go!

The searches on file sharing are very limited. Mostly to the file name of the application or music you want.
Now in the age an ever growing number of music download sites, there is no reason to have to search through file sharing to find what you want. You can buy the song you want for pennies online and legally.
So there is no need to search through file sharing programs to find the song you want, as 98% of the time it will be on one of these legal song download sites.

The same is with programs. You have to know the name of the program to seach for it on a filesharing program to find the download. This means you know what the program does and you want to use it. On the other hand you can search for the program on a normal search engine and find a place where to purchase the software legally. But people dont, because that costs money.

However, if the searches where setup so you can search for all sound editing software which have certain features or all photo editing programs again with certain feature, and then you are able to down load a demo or pay for a full licienced version it would be good.
But they are not. People search for Photoshop, download the full version and then use it. People are not searching for small clips or trailers of Star Wars III, they are searching for the full version to sit and watch.

Some good has come out of firesharing. If you needed a photograph of a sports team from years ago from the other side of the world, it is possible it is there. If you need to find a document on the inards of intel processors you may find something. However this probably takes up less than 0.1% of file sharing uses.

The 99.9% of the things downloaded on the net now are illegal films, programs and music. The programs and music can be purchased just as easy as downloading it. A few mins on a site and your wanted file is being downloaded securely, quickley and legally.

But for some reason people think that downloading a file is not illegal.

There are musicians today making their careers directly from the Internet. They start their own record companies on the Web, they release music directly through the Web, and they sell directly from the Web. By using the Web to bypass all the usual ''handlers'', like agents, labels, record stores, etc., they are able to make a living while retaining artistic and financial control of their work. P2P networks play a part in this. Some, like Kazaa, actually promote artists and offer downloads of their songs.

No i have found tracks no longer available to purchase
and been able to gain access to rare listings,i would buy some of these tracks if they were available

The way I use file sharing mostly,is working with projects. This is not illegal. It saves SO much time and by doing so, it keeps the production rolling in stead of playing the hurry up and wait game. {I quit the 'Napster thing with music a few years back because of the situation from the artist's that made the music, used to work in that industry for a while). I know there are some that use this for illegal purposes (pirating software etc.) and there are other kinds of 'sharing' that are VERY frowned upon in the day and age we live with (photo's graphics, etc.). You just have to have one little word in your vocabulary... RESPECT, (at least is my view on it). If you are in doubt about, shout... contact the person and or company and get their written permission... Remember, CYA, (Come on, we all know way that stands for and what to cover {grin & wink}...) I have run across artist's and others, that say no way are you to use it, I get in touch with them, and quite a few have given me permission, some do requesting the final outcome of my work for approval from them, and have got nothing but praises. Goes to show the old saying is true, Give Respect, Get Respect...

Rose Fohn

Lots of shareware out there and time locked software which copyright owners want distributed widely as possible. P to P is one way this is done.

Just want to download music. I don't believe that any of them have checked to see if the music they download is legal. As Kazaa has proved, they will do it even if the program they are using is full of spyware.

Is it all about music and such? My experience comes from NetMeeting and Skype, where you can be in touch with friends and coworkers to up- or download files to and from each other. The primary purpose is certainly not of illegal nature. Instead these programs provide the users with excellent tools. If the user violate someones copyright then the user is to blame, not the program provider.

P2P is critical to the way I run my business (national law practice). I pay a relatively small fee ($6.75, I believe) each month for use of a program called FolderShare. I save files to a local hard-drive and have given permission to other users to sync their folders to mine. I can set their permission levels to "only view" the file/s, or to "modify/upload" files, etc. I am located in the mid-East. I work with people in various locations across the country. P2P is a very easy way of keeping the files on everyone's computer synchronized so everyone has access to the latest version. File transmission is encrypted, so client info confidentiality is not at risk. This is MUCH easier than emailing files to persons. The program automatically detects revisions and sync's all members' versions. It is also much better - and faster - than a centralized database, which is very slow to access. I don't use the technology for downloading songs. I like Rhapsody, and gladly pay $10 a month for their system - which provides the added bonus of showing similar artists.