The CNET Lounge

General discussion

Is file-sharing programs' only purpose to illegally trade copyrighted materials?

by Lee Koo (ADMIN) CNET staff/forum admin / May 4, 2005 9:22 PM PDT

Is file-sharing programs' only purpose to illegally trade copyrighted materials?

Yes (please explain)
No (please explain)
Possibly (tell us)

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Is file-sharing programs' only purpose to illegally trade copyrighted materials?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Is file-sharing programs' only purpose to illegally trade copyrighted materials?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
sharing files

it brings people together! hahahahahaha

Collapse -
file-sharing programs

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.

Collapse -
File-Sharing Programs
by EnigmaNeko / May 5, 2005 11:11 PM PDT
In reply to: file-sharing programs

I am in total agreement with Mykle's post. Happy

Collapse -
copying some material is illegal
by anapro / May 6, 2005 1:35 AM PDT
In reply to: file-sharing programs

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.

Collapse -
BitTorrent
by gopherbyrd / May 6, 2005 1:51 PM PDT
In reply to: file-sharing programs

Most Linux distros now use BitTorrent as a way of downloading. It takes the load off of their ftp servers. Most linux distros don't have the money to run a big ftp server farm with a big pipe connection to the internet. Even with mirror sites the bandwidth is still limited. The users are downloading from themselves after the torrent has been seeded. This is perfectly legal.

Sure, there are going to be loosers that will abuse the concept by putting up copyrighted material, but don't kill a system that works for the majority of users who are legal.

Collapse -
File-sharing programs
by eric90230 / May 7, 2005 9:07 AM PDT
In reply to: file-sharing programs

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. It?s cheating. It?s 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 I?m ABLE to steal something, then it?s OKAY to steal it? If I?m ABLE to shoot somebody, then it?s okay to shoot him?

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

Yes, if little Johnny shares his toy firetruck, that?s 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, that?s not good. See?

>> The artists who have plenty of money <<

Wow, every artist in the world is rich? That?s so cool! And isn?t 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 don?t think they?re over-priced, but these are just opinions. Anyway, if you can?t afford a CD, then you don?t deserve it. I can?t afford a Mercedes, and I?m 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 friend?s 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 CD?s. It?s not right, sorry.

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

Collapse -
No way are they deprived of a living
by dandanthebandaideman / January 19, 2006 2:04 PM PST
In reply to: file-sharing programs

Oh the poor music industry.......I'm sure!...If you think any of them deserve the amount of money they get you got to be out of your mind! Look how those dip sh-ts live! we ought to steal every song we can get our hands on, they don't mind sealing from their fans! The record companys crying about p2p stealing is the pot calling the kettle BLACK! Look up thief in the dictionary and you see a perfect defanition of RECORD COMPANY!

Collapse -
copy right?

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.

Collapse -
Sharing is caring
by mrtazmania2 / May 5, 2005 10:41 PM PDT
In reply to: copy right?

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. As far as programs go, most of them have a trial period which you can check it out to see if it's something you'd like to purchase, but they generally have limited use so to get the most out of it you might be able to "overide" the trial period and get the functional program and share this knowledge with your friends. Peer to Peer allows for a wider range of possibilities than the average user can get from their own home, and has contributed more to the companies that are trying to get rid of it than they would have with their own advertising. I have purchased many more programs, music, and movies based on what was "found" on peer to peer than I would have just browsing the store shelves. My mother taught me to share, my company has told me that if I have an idea to improve or change something I should share it, my church has taught me to love thy neighbor and to share the love, why not.

Collapse -
Stealing is not caring
by eric90230 / May 7, 2005 9:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Sharing is caring

>> 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 minister?s opinion of downloading music and getting permanent copies of music for free. And you should take that advice.

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

Collapse -
Music..? They're rich!
by dyesberger / May 10, 2005 1:02 PM PDT
In reply to: Sharing is caring

Okay, look at MTV Cribs, these artists or actors are rich on a giant scale. They have made so much that they could retire forever, if they could live that long. Now 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, and there are always people who will buy at the store. So either way, it doesn't hurt the artist. Americans are spoiled. Thes rich artists shold be giving to the poor or something rather than buying some Rolls Royce, wen you could get a nice honda or something for 1/10 the price. P2P doesn't hurt anyone, with a few small exceptions like viruses, or programs...but in terms of music, I couldn't live without it.

Collapse -
Capitalism
by eric90230 / May 14, 2005 3:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Music..? They're rich!

>> 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 CD?s when they legitimate sellers don?t want them to be free?

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

And there are always people who don?t 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 don?t? LOL

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

Now it?s 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 don?t deserve it. If the sellers want to distribute their files for free, that?s fine, and that?s different from zillions of files being distributed against the wishes of the rightful owners. Capitalism (selling CD?s) is good, excessive greed (thinking you deserve free CD?s) is bad.

Pay as you go!

Collapse -
These sites infringe copyright and should be illegal
by lancre / May 6, 2005 2:42 AM PDT
In reply to: copy right?

Copyrights after 1978 last for 70 years after the holder's death and can be extended forever as in the case of the book "Peter Pan". Things copyrighted before that time can have their rights extended usually to 70 years after death. This does not only apply to books but also to music and many other things.

Even patents, which are usually for 20 years can be extended.

There are many people involved in file sharing who are downloading books in MP3 format. A very popular author I know has had all his books put up for sale on auction sites all on one CD or even sent to the Buyer in an e-mail or by directing them via email to a site where they can download for a set number of days. This author has never released a book in the e-book format. Another friend produces unabridged audio books which are mainly used by the blind, sight impaired, elderly people and the dyslexic. He has to pay for the licence to do this as well as the actors to read the books, He sells them at a very reasonable price but his profits are cut by the action of file sharing program members turning these into MP3 files and selling via on line auctions. I am talking 25+ books on one CD.

It isn't just the owners of the copyrights but the people employed right down the line to the product being available that are hurt as lost profits mean staff reductions and/or increasing the price of the product be it a book or music.

Copyright infringement is illegal, you can be taken to court and face heavy penalties. If you want to sell such files, pay the licence.

Remember the site may not be prosecuted but you certainly will be.

In the UK recently a lad was stopped and his MP3 player examined. He admitted downloading some tracks from such a site and is now in court.

As for reducing prices. This happens already because people buy licences and produce their legal copies at vastly reduced prices within a few months of the original release.

Collapse -
There is no other reason for it

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.

Collapse -
One Good Reason for File Sharing
by fmb43 / May 8, 2005 6:58 PM PDT

While the vast majority of file sharing to date probably has been for the "illegal" downloading of materials for personal entertainment, you can see the very valuable potential for legitimate file sharing in such P2P (peer to peer) programs as Groove. Although this program has been acquired by Microsoft, if it continues to be developed, it will advance the collaboration and management capability of business software to a paradigm shifting degree with respect to business process and customer relationship models.

Collapse -
P2P Legit
by ghostcatbce / May 13, 2005 12:33 PM PDT

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.

Collapse -
Legitimacy
by eric90230 / May 14, 2005 3:42 AM PDT
In reply to: P2P Legit

>> 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. <<

Selling is good.

>> P2P networks play a part in this. Some, like Kazaa, actually promote artists and offer downloads of their songs. <<

Too bad that Kazaa also lets zillions of people get free permanent copies of the music against the wishes of rightful sellers.

Pay as you go! Do the right thing.

Collapse -
is file sharing only purpose illegal copying

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

Collapse -
file sharing

file sharing apps are openly used solely for the collection and distribution of popular music, as such, updates are released and new apps created aiming more and more at the mp3 wma ogg et cetera file format sharing, using id3 tag searches and the like. the reality is that these apps are made for the distribution of illegal music with other compatable formats thrown in to avoid legal action

Collapse -
File Sharing

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

Collapse -
No

File sharing's purpose is to reduce the load on a centralized server by allowing peers to download files off of each other. It just so happens that a lot of "copyright infringing" content is available on such networks. However, there is a plethora of non-infringing content being distributed as well. Quit whining!

Collapse -
Agree With No - Think Shareware
by WizardWorks / May 6, 2005 1:17 AM PDT
In reply to: No

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.

Collapse -
Another great use
by Crash2100 / May 6, 2005 3:49 AM PDT
In reply to: No

And once the world finally wakes up and people start getting home PC's running on Linux, I think file sharing will be a great asset when it comes to trading open source software.

Collapse -
Most of the friends I know

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.

Collapse -
Legal as a system,

P2P
P2P programs are legal as a system. But it using this programs for downloading illegal materials is illegal.
In general P2P(peer to peer) programs are just the method for the distribution of files. But most often people use this "methos" and software in unproper way.
This is becouse the large number of files availave via this software implementations and variations.

Collapse -
Only music?

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 someone?s copyright then the user is to blame, not the program provider.

Collapse -
Yes they are

I have had much personal experience with file-sharing programs and have found that the majority exist only to share copyrighted material (EX: Napster). I don't believe, however, that this sharing is illegal as there are other methods to aquire this material if one is persistent and willing to work for it. Examples of other sources are DVD recorders, TIVO, Dish Network, DirecTV, etc. One only needs to have some patience to aquire any material and yet these methods are not considered illegal... yet????

Collapse -
FolderShare
by tomwms / May 6, 2005 2:26 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes they are

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.

Collapse -
Share abd Share alike

I do not see ANY problem downloading files drom the net. These artist and program writers should realize that if it was not for file sharing there would be A LOT of cd's and programs that would not be bought legit. I for one do not nor will not buy a cd or program with seeing if it is worth it to spend my hard earned money. Not all of us are leeches who want something for nothing, I just want to know, without limits or freaking Federal laws that what I am buying is really worth it. Would ANY of you buy a car without test driving it? I think not.

Collapse -
There's a whole lot of legitimate uses

The way they blame file sharing for piracy, they could just as easily blame the Internet and web pages for piracy, because there's just as much, if not more files being served on web pages than on file sharing networks. If they're going to make file sharing illegal, they should make tape recorders, DVD/CD burners, PC sound cards, VCR?s, PVR's, and basically anything else with recording capabilities, illegal too. Because all those devices could just as easily be blamed for piracy too.

It's just easier for the companies to go after a very popular central location for trading. And right now, that's file sharing networks. But it doesn't do much good, because another will pop right up. Look what shutting down napster did. It didn?t stop anything and the file trading went from one basically centralized location, sharing only music, to spread all over the internet and sharing nearly everything.

These networks, just like web sites, could so easily be used for businesses and other legitimate uses. The companies are just too lazy to figure out how to do it, they just want to keep everything the way it is working now, they seem to be afraid of change. But with the way things are going, I think the people are more forcing the companies to change, because if they don't they're going to leave them in the dust.

A similar thing happened years ago with the VCR. Because the movie industry acted the same way when the VCR first came out. They were oh, so afraid that no one would go see movies in theaters and people would copy each other's movies, and the industry would go bankrupt. Yet, here we are 30 years later, they fixed copyright laws, didn't destroy the technology, and now they have VCR's and DVD's to thank for making them a great deal richer. Imagine what would have happened had the movie industry got their way and destroyed the technology.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Tech for the holiday

Find recipes for July 4 with these foodie apps

The Fourth of July means fireworks, fun and food. If you're planning on a barbecue this weekend, we've got the apps to help you find holiday-inspired recipes.