Where I live, filesharing is not against the law... yet. So the other question is whether or not it is moral.

I think that question is a red herring actually. Outlawing filesharing will not make it stop. Putting technological restrictions on media to prevent it causes problems of their own (as Sony has discovered). Realistically, you would need a police state to ensure filesharing is stopped.

My grandmother has told me that as a kid, her family used to have an "ice man" that would come by every day and drop off some ice for people's ice box. With the advent of refridgeration this obviously was not needed which in turn forced a change in that business/industry. I see a similar case here. Personally, I trust the free market to come up with business models to enable artists to live in a world where filesharing exists. In my opinion, it is not up to government to legislate antiquated business models.

For my own part, I have quite a bit of shared content. I can also say that my CD purchases (and DVDs for that matter) have increased quite noticeably. I've found some incredible artists on the Internet, and my current band puts all our shows on archive.org.

I respect the stance of those that feel filesharing removes one of the biggest sources of income for artists, but I don't feel that it trumps the rights of the purchaser.

... great thread.  

Funny how many people buy into the RIAA lawyers' wagging fingers and contrived outrage.

Is downloading an mp3 the same as shoplifting a CD from Tower Records? Of course not, for at least two reasons -
1. Shoplifting a CD is stealing physical property that has a demonstrable monetary value, and
2. when you steal a CD, you're directly taking money out of the pocket of the store owner.

When you download a song, you're 'stealing' from the artist. But is it stealing? Everyone in this thread who's all up in arms seems to imagine that people who download mp3s steal entire albums, don't pay their taxes, take candy from babies and hunt endangered species in their off-time. Well, here's a question for you moral fundamentalists. I've downloaded Kashmir for 'free' so I can listen to it on my computer. I already own TWO lp copies of Physical Graffiti. Now everything's in CD format, and I don't own a working record player any more, so am I supposed to buy ANOTHER copy of Physical Graffiti because I own it in a format that the RIAA forced out?

I have also downloaded some individual songs that I never would have bought anyway, but that I like listening to once in a blue moon. Either way, the artist isn't going to get any money out of me, so should I just deny myself listening to the song so that I can say I'm a good boy?

If you took a cookbook out of a library and you thought, "Gee, this is a crummy cookbook, but that one recipe is great," would you go to B. Dalton and buy the cookbook for that one recipe? Of course you wouldn't, unless you're a bonehead.

My wife owns at least 60 cookbooks. Do you think she owns any that only have one or two good recipes? She doesn't, because she's not in the business of supporting every cookbook author in the world just because they threw together a cookbook. Since when is it a moral obligation to support every artist and writer in the world, whether or not they put out a good, consistent product?

"I don't want to hijack this thread but I'd be willing to bet that the filesharers who also play for pay don't pay taxes on their income either."

That's an incredibly holier-than-thou assumption.

"Anyway, according to the law, copying music or any other artistic material is ILLEGAL.  Case closed. "

Gee, thanks for clearing up the whole situation for us. As we all know, laws are always exactly correct, which is why they never change over time. That's why this country doesn't have any lawyers or judges or Congressmen or Senators, because we don't NEED any. The law is the law, and LAWS are always right. Women should cover their heads when they leave the house, and black Americans are worth 3/5 of white Americans, and witches should be tested with water-dunking and then drowned. Laws are laws. Case closed.

And who am I to judge whether or not Madonna has enough money? Well, you know what? I'm making that judgment anyway -- she has PLENTY. Yes, I'm going out on a moral limb and stating that I believe Madonna has plenty of money.

I did download a Madonna song once. I'd heard that Madonna salted all the P2P sites with a fake version of "American Life" where she bitched at whoever downloaded it. Sure enough, I downloaded a copy of "American Life" and when I played it, all I heard was Madonna saying, "What the f*** do you think YOU'RE doing?"

Very clever, Madonna. And how refreshing that you would begrudge the very people who made you rich beyond your wildest dreams a few crumbs off your golden table.

U2 has made file-sharing work for them. They've taken the time and put in the effort to where they're MAKING money from file-sharing on their own website. Is the band Metallica powerless to do the same? No, they're just too lazy and angry to do it. It's easier to lawyer up and whine than it is to think one's position through.

I'd like to ask all you strict moralists a question. When your wife asks you, "Does this dress make me look fat?" do you use a little human kindness and tact and say "No, that looks really good - have you LOST some weight?" or do you stand up for total honesty and say "Yeah, I hate to say it but that dress really does make you look fat."

In my mind, the latter response is incredibly selfish. Sure, it's RIGHT, and TRUE, but at what price? The only people I know who think brutal honesty is always the best policy (besides some teenagers) are people who like gazing into the mirror every chance they get, congratulating themselves on their moral superiority.

If you want to express a knee-jerk response programmed into you by Madonna and RIAA lawyers that's fine, but don't act all self-righteous about it. It's not necessarily US who have to change. It just might be the artists and the RIAA.

Its not the downloading but the uploading thats illegal by the way.

Thanks man...... no, we won't be taking warm showers in the wee hours of the morning, fer sure.....  jus kiddin', joker

That was my point exactly when I said that unless you plan on helping change the law, it's a moot point.  Thanks for stating it more eloquently than I can.  I'm not being facetious, just pointing out that you seem to have missed my point on that particular statement.  

Cool thread!  

I do it because everyone else is doing it is a childish excuse.

I feel as a human I must treat people the way I want to be treated.

So I must ask myself how would I feel if I had a saleable song and it was being freely distributed.

You must question if stealing a CD is the same as stealing a car.
Do both cost your integrity.

You must at lest be honest with yourself when you download a song and live with the fact your making someone commit a crime by giving you it.

This thread has changed me...I will not download music from shared source.

If I do the talk I should do the walk and I think I make my own luck.

Sounds like uploading to me.

Making the copy, uploading, reproducing by electronic means is the illegal part.

I believe Tony is schooled in law and might have the references at hand.

Nah nah nah nahnah your going to be in trouble!

i will say that thru this thread i found many of the arguments generated here are very compelling, and i'm realizing that as a purely moral choice, file stealing is straight up wrong.  heck, i can afford to buy much of what i need, and music should be no different.

not only that, but, i'm also realizing that if at anytime someone takes from another's hard work and dedication WITHOUT permission of said artist, then its wrong and unjustified, no matter how you slice it.

heck, we could be talking about intelligent property i.e. internet / intellectual properties.  something that while cant be held in your hands or seen w/ your eyes, is an idea that is ultimately owned by the originator.  the person/people of origin of those ideas are the only ones who have FULL RIGHTS AND ACCESS.  and i think music most definitely qualifies.  and in this commodified market, money is the one thing that will grant you that access.

but, in the end, its not about the money.  its about the hard work i put into something, and to see it bandied about with little to no regard would be heartbreaking and at worse, infuriating.

again, while record companies are losing money, its the artist who's ultimately undone in the end.  not only are they being screwed over by their record company's contracts, they're also now being screwed over by their own fans.  

The problem in this area is there are no references or concrete laws.  Each situation is unique, blah, blah.  I have some experience in working on piracy cases invoving Motion Pictures and general copyright infringement law, and I also have a case on the books regarding intellectual property valuation (long story), but in terms of filesharing, its a grey area at best.

Generally speaking, when you purchase music it's use is limited to private, non-commercial broadcast, ie through your prefered delivery device.  It's when you make this music available in ways that circumvent the appropriate licensing payments, whether it's broadcast, trading, uploading AND downloading, use in movies, etc that problems arise.

It's not just music and musicians, but other artists, software developers, actors, producers, directors, all of these industries are affected by piracy.

Here are some fun facts about piracy in general.  When an authorized copy of a CD or movie is made, did you know that all the Codecs do not transfer.  For instance, when you DL a bootleg copy of a particular movie, none of the surround sound Codecs transfer.  So your $2500 Bose 7.1 speakers are absolutely worthless.  You may get surround type sound through all your speakers, but you're not getting true surround sound.  

Again, not to be preaching, but filesharing is affects more than the music industry and the "fat cat" types such as Metallica.  Sure, Lars sounds like a whiny baby, but he's got a right.  If any of us were in the position he was, I hope you would fight vigorously to defend your art and it's commercial viability.  Look at like this.  If you work at a burger joint and somehow create a sensational new burger that sells off the shelves faster than any other product, shouldn't you be compensated for it?  Wouldn't you have a problem if McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and the other burger joints all started selling McFamousBurgerFlippers that you created, and weren't compensating you for it, even though the law says you should be?

Why is music so much different a product?