This might be able to go in General, but I thought it fit here best.

It seems to me that sharing with other people has always been and should continue to be legal. Now that technology has advanced to the point that people can share on a large enough scale that music companies make less money, music companies want to limit the right to share to protect their profits. From this point of view it seems music companies have no case.

Like any other book, movie, broadcast, etc, people sharing such files should not be allowed to sell or profit in any way from shared files. But there’s no copyright problem with such examples as:
• Allowing many people to watch a single broadcast on your TV
• The entire country recording a song broadcast on the radio
• Many people borrowing a copy of a book from the library
• Taking pictures of artwork and posting these pictures on a web site for all to see
Why should file sharing be any different? The two distinguishing features in the case of P2P file sharing is that
1. A special interest group that was making lots of money stands to loose its continued profits from this development, and
2. There might be some technological way of controlling and continuing to make a profit off it, if allowed (as opposed to recording songs off the radio).

I’ve heard some people argue that taking funding away from the artists will stifle music, create only inferior music, lead to the death of art, etc. I find this very unconvincing. First, one might argue that most of the popular crap music companies market doesn’t have much artistic value anyways. But more seriously, people have been making music and other art since before recording industries started making rock stars. Historically, artists have had to adapt to social conditions, and will have to do so now. How many of you have contributed to your local court composer recently? And yet classical music lives on, often driven by new social phenomenon – Motzart could never have imagined that writing scores to motion pictures would be a composer's bread and butter one day.

Musicians will continue to make music. It may be that they will only make money off those who broadcast the music publicly, or for live performances. It may be that only those who make music for the fame or for the love of music will continue to do so. It may be that only the truly exceptional music will gain widespread popularity instead of whatever music companies want to market.

So what do y'all think?

Not similar enough to be compared. To be analogous to file sharing, people would have to be making multiple copies of the TV broadcast and taking them home to watch on their own TV, which is illegal...

Which would be illegal...

Only one person can borrow a copy of a library book at any given time. And whoever has borrowed it is not permitted to allow their friends to make complete copies of it...

Which, unless you hold the copyright to the artwork, or unless it was created before copyrights were implemented, is also (you guessed it!) illegal...

Personally, I struggle over this issue; peer-to-peer sharing is very accessible, yet it's a form of stealing no matter how you look at it. Now, if you want to claim that the music industry has set itself up in a manner that encourages such theft, I would not disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that file sharing is theft. Morally wrong, yet legal, but since your question wasn't whether it was legal or not, my conclusion is that it's just wrong.

I like that point. But Geist is right, the stuff that you compared to file-sharing is itself illegal, so you're killing your own argument. The biggest difference between classical music and modern rock music, though, is that classical music was written and performed (and nowadays usually is) for love of the music, so the people who love it continue it. The modern pop/rock culture advocates the financial aspect of the activity more than anything else.

Sharing has been legal on smaller accounts in the past, true, but once something is found to be detrimental to individuals or society then it mayb be outlawed. File sharing is on the scale where it harms the music industry, so it should probably be outlawed. To illustrate my point, a farmer develops an chemical that kills pesky insects more efficiently. Everyone loves it, and all the farmers mix it with their pesticides to protect their crops. But one day a farmer puts too much of the chemical in his pesticide and after he sprays his crops, the infected bugs are eaten by birds, who are vulnerable to the higher concentration of the deadly chemical. The birds are affected and, as a result, the shells on their eggs are too thin to hold their offspring properly, and they fail to produce live baby birds. The people find out about this and outlaw the chemical that was previously thought to be great. Just like that chemical, sharing files could get out of hand and cripple the music industry. Some "farmers" will continue using the chemical, but if they're caught, then they would be punished accordingly, for no one wants the harmful effects of the chemical to be manifested.

That's my stand. I believe that it should be illegal if it proves to be unruly.

Its a different issue if the item that is created causes harm to others. What if the farmer is the only one hurt?
What if the farmer created a miraculous potion that grew bigger and better crops. His fields were noticed because of this and his neighbors inquired about his fortunate crops. He decides to sell them his potion to help his growing family survive in the tough agricultural life. He does so well selling to his neighbors that he eventually quits growing his own crops, and simply sells his potion. Well, a farmer in a nearby state decides that it costs too much to get the potion and he figures out the ingredients and makes his own. Well, his neighbors want some of his potion#2, and he sells his potion to them. Seeing the opportunity he has, due to his suave marketing abilities, he decides to mass sell potion#2- and he can produce it cheaper because of the quantity he is selling. Well, the inventor of the potion ends up being put out of business, and into bankruptcy now that he is no longer growing crops, because the 2nd farmer took his creation and sold it cheaper.
Okay- our country does protect this due to patent laws. The music referred to is also protected by these type of laws. If this sharing is allowed to proceed out of control, it could put the original 'inventors' out of business. Now, that doesn't seem fair, even though it is very possible.

I like Wolfs point that "Historically, artists have had to adapt to social conditions, and will have to do so now. How many of you have contributed to your local court composer recently? And yet classical music lives on."

How many people thought movie theaters would still be so popular after videos came into being? The industry has embraced it and found yet more ways to profit. I must say, I am not at all worried that music companies will be put out of business by sharing with friends. But that doesn't make it legal now does it...or ethical.

A question to ponder-
Is there a responsibility to protect that farmer who created the potion? Or is it simply the way of capitalism to let the stronger, smarter thrive? I'd like some of your feedback on this.
:blink: