MGump
May 26th, 2003, 06:40 PM
This forum seems to be very heavily weighed towards supporting the idea that P2P file sharing is OK. I would be very interested in hearing people's opinions on both sides of the issue about why P2P file sharing should or should not be considered stealing.
My own viewpoint is that if someone makes the effort to create something that somebody else wants then they should receive some form of payment for creating that product. Would a society continue to exist if people were not paid for their efforts? I don't think so. Why is it that because it is now very easy for most people to get a copy of something like a recorded song using the available technology, people feel that should make it acceptable?
I have read some of the threads in this forum and the main thought seems to be that the recording industry is out to screw the general public and maybe the recording artists. Why should the recording industry not be allowed to profit from their efforts? I can see where maybe they have gotten greedy and take too large a percentage of the profits but how is it proper to say they should not benefit from their work and investments? Does it not cost quite a bit to record, market, promote and distribute music from many, many sources? Do these record companies not have to invest quite a bit of money to make this happen? Do they not risk losing that money if their products don't sell?
Capitalism requires risk and it rewards that risk taking behavior with profits. Why should people not be rewarded for the risks they take? Would you take (steal) a glass of lemonaid from a kid's street lemonaid stand just because you were older and bigger and could do it? How long would a society continue to exist if risk taking behavior were not rewarded? Because some thing is possible to do should not be sufficient reason for a person or segment of society to do it. The global effects on society of doing it should be the real defining factors in the decision to do or not do it.
Thanks for listening to my point of view. Please respond with your points of view and specifically with answers to the questions I posed. I would encourage those who respond to do so politely and without the use of flaming techniques which would possibly only serve to make me resistive to their comments. Besides, it would only serve to make you look foolish and not well informed or intelligent if you resort to name calling or foul language.
I may be missing some very good, reasonable reasons why P2P file sharing is a valid thing for people to do so if you have some good reasons, please share them with me. Thanks.
My own viewpoint is that if someone makes the effort to create something that somebody else wants then they should receive some form of payment for creating that product. Would a society continue to exist if people were not paid for their efforts? I don't think so. Why is it that because it is now very easy for most people to get a copy of something like a recorded song using the available technology, people feel that should make it acceptable?
I have read some of the threads in this forum and the main thought seems to be that the recording industry is out to screw the general public and maybe the recording artists. Why should the recording industry not be allowed to profit from their efforts? I can see where maybe they have gotten greedy and take too large a percentage of the profits but how is it proper to say they should not benefit from their work and investments? Does it not cost quite a bit to record, market, promote and distribute music from many, many sources? Do these record companies not have to invest quite a bit of money to make this happen? Do they not risk losing that money if their products don't sell?
Capitalism requires risk and it rewards that risk taking behavior with profits. Why should people not be rewarded for the risks they take? Would you take (steal) a glass of lemonaid from a kid's street lemonaid stand just because you were older and bigger and could do it? How long would a society continue to exist if risk taking behavior were not rewarded? Because some thing is possible to do should not be sufficient reason for a person or segment of society to do it. The global effects on society of doing it should be the real defining factors in the decision to do or not do it.
Thanks for listening to my point of view. Please respond with your points of view and specifically with answers to the questions I posed. I would encourage those who respond to do so politely and without the use of flaming techniques which would possibly only serve to make me resistive to their comments. Besides, it would only serve to make you look foolish and not well informed or intelligent if you resort to name calling or foul language.
I may be missing some very good, reasonable reasons why P2P file sharing is a valid thing for people to do so if you have some good reasons, please share them with me. Thanks.