I'm a limewire user and a reporter writing a story for the Ottawa Citizen about how music companies going after P2P servers due to fears of mp3-swapping is, some say, kind of misguided.

I'm looking for comments on user's views on the ethics of using Gnutella-like software for this purpose. Does it bother you? Also, are music companies justified in trying to shut down P2Ps (re: Audiogalaxy, Morpheus, Kazaa and Grokster law suits) if not all users are trading MP3's?

I'll need names and city locations please, in order to quote you.

Thanks.

Elaine O'Connor

there's a very considered article by Janis Ian (www.janisian.com) at her homepage that neatly canvases the issues associated with p2p, mp3, copyright, and RIAA - Courtney Love has also written some good pieces but I can't remember the links so you might want to kick google into action - another avenue you might want to explore is to use google to take you to the various groups chatting away about the ethics of p2p and mp3 files (absolutely every side of the debate represented)

Cheers, bad_vlad

a couple of thoughts

the guy that created freenet once commented that if you've been making money selling water in the desert and its starts raining you need to get into a new business (selling umbrellas I guess) - its a succinct expression of the issue facing the major music distributors - on the one hand they'd clearly like music compression technologies and p2p to just go away but on the other hand they'd desperately like to make money somehow out of it - so far their attempts to profitably adapt have been underwhelming - some like Sony start manufacturing mp3 players but then reduce their usefulness by ridiculous attempts at linking them to cumbersome formats (i.e. atrac) that limit copy/transfer of files - but but but - the real issue I think is that the very nature of music as a cultural product for market consuption has fundamentaly changed in ways the major comanies have yet to really get a fix on - music is no longer 'special' - we don't put on our best clothes, gather around the radiogram and marvel at a band suddenly being in our lounge - for millions of people music has become 'wallpaper' - inherently disposable, transitory in its appeal, and part of an ever quickening process of cultural consumption - p2p and mp3 files perfectly match this development whereas older more expensive and durable formats do not - if the established companies were serious about 'catching up' instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into the real world they'd radically change the way they operate.

First, they'd accept that copyright as a way to ensure endless profits for themselves (as opposed to artists) is no longer viable.

Second, they'd accept that the longer they whinge on the sidelines the greater the number of 'privately' copied music files there will be available for download via gnutella.

Third, they'd take note of the fact that the reason many people prefered napster to 'purer' p2p systems is that its soooooo much less hassle. If the majors let individuals cheaply subscribe to their catalogues and download high quality files for home burning (with shops also custom making CD's of mixed artists/tracks) - and - switched to releasing quality players (both hardware and software) - they'd have the beginnings of a new business model that people would embrace rather than their current one that is (justifiably) held in contempt. They'd certainly be selling umbrellas rather than water but its either that or get steadily washed away in the flood.

Amen!!!

This subject brings up a common problem for any ethical surveys: peoples' real opinions may often differ from the politically correct replies they 'ought to' give.

For example, if you stop people on the street and ask them to publicly state whether or not they think copyright infringement is wrong, most will probably say yes. However, the reality is that P2P is overwhelmingly used to exchange copyrighted material. This is an entirely visible social phenomenon that has been written about extensively in respected publications.

The fact that the major record labels:

a) have declared war on their potential customers with anti-copy , anti-P2P measures

b) have made no attempt to reduce CD prices and at the same time spend more and more money promoting a smaller and smaller number of artists.

c) still take the vast majority of profits

d) are making little or no attempt to use the Internet to their advantage or revolutionise music distribution

makes it even easier for users to justify piracy with the "I'm just rebelling against the bad guys" argument.

One should never underestimate the influence of peer pressure. This use of P2P has reached such a massive degree of acceptance that the computer users I know (almost without exception) regularly download and copy music without the slightest hint of guilt and without making any attempt to hide their activity. And here I'm talking about people from about 14-55 years old , both male and female, of a wide variety of professions and social backgrounds. Still ....if you asked these people "Is it wrong to steal?" in a street survey I'm sure almost all of them would still say yes.

But let's imagine that the mainstream recording industry wised up a bit and decided to set up their own servers with instant, high-bandwidth access to a large catalogue of high-quality music....for a small subscription fee. I reckon some 'renegade' P2P users would be prepared to sign up. This would, at the very least, be a better option (both finacially and in terms of public relations) than the current 'pay up or else' legal battles and sabotage attempts. Of course it would require a radical change in philosophy on the part of the major labels.

you're absolutely right, we would in fact give our money to ensure quality downloads. i think that is obvious by the number of people that pay for software these days. i paid $20 for a year of audiogalaxy and look where it got me!! but i would gladly do it again! i definitely got my $20 worth. but it will never surpass the immense cd collection that i've amassed since high school. i must have spent every paycheck on music. i've got thousands of dollars worth of cds that were bought legit. i went broke and ate peanut butter for a week to be able to get the new albums coming out while all the record industry got rich off of me and every other sheep music lover. our weakness is our love of music. they preyed on that and the naivety of music artists to become rich, talentless thieves.

I dont know that I'd spend any more money on file sharing than I already do. I pay for a high bandwidth connection to the internet. I paid for limewire pro and am now using Aqualime (lmao), I've bought bigger hard drives to acoomodate all the stuff I share ...

As I look at filesharing, its a try before you buy sort of appeal. I think the artist needs to make money, I think the record lable needs to be reimbursed for expenses, and make some money too ... however, 15-17 bucks for a cd that costs less than .50 cents to produce is insane. There's profit and then there's insane profit.

But like Mr. Unregistered, I've bought at least 1000 cd's since I was in school ... but I've ripped them and share them ... and I suggest that Mr. Unregistered do the same.

You have to realize that the record companies aren't selling CDs for $15-17. The local record stores sell them for that price. The price that the record companies sell CDs to the local stores is probably more like $5-8.

What's sad is that the artist is forced to sign away their copyright and they typically gets 50 cents to $1 per album and they have to pay for huge promotional expenses before they start seeing any money.

I wish artists would start selling their albums on their own so I could give my money directly to them without making the big record companies and music store chains rich.

Thanks for the input.

Elaine.

I have got to support and echo the comments made above (at least most comments). When I began downloading I did go for the latest releases (this was over a 33.6K modem, very slow download time) but soon encountered Napster that offered the ability to locate songs from my past and beyond. I have bought CDs that I would never have bought had it not been for the try-before-you-buy ethos that MP3s offer. I do believe that if you truly feel that an artist needs supporting then purchasing the CDs is the only process at present to offer such support.

However, a large amount of my downloads are songs that I would like but would