hardware certain privileges associated to its use. For instance, under the DMCA,it is illegal to write certain numbers on a hard drive, namely those which can beassociated to a piece of copyrighted material. By using the same logic, it wouldtherefore be illegal to write a quotation from a work of art (a movie, a song, apoem, etc) on a napkin. This illustrates the absurdity of such legislation.Some file sharers argue that the companies whose intellectual property is beingcopied are large and generate high profits, and can thus afford the possible lossin profits.Other advocates of file sharing believe that this does not affect artist'sprofits; due that the revenue occasioned from the product sales only benefits thedistribution company. For instance, a film is made by a huge crew where manyindividuals take part in the creative processes, (including Directors, Editors,Directors of Photography, and many others) which do not receive a proportionalpart of the sales net benefit. Therefore, the favorite argument of corporateentertainment distributors is proven a lie. Many advocates adamantly believe thataccess to Music and Films is, by its intrinsic cultural value, a right that shouldnot be subject to distributor's oligopoly.[edit] File sharing opponentsFurther information: Copyright infringementOpponents of file-sharing believe that the music and other files that aredownloaded are the work of the artist, programmer, or film director that madethem, not public property. When files are shared, the artist or copyright ownerdoes not receive any compensation. Therefore, they believe, sharing and copyingfiles is stealing the same way shoplifting is.Opponents of file sharing argue that not only does sharing files decrease theincome of the actors and bands; it especially affects the staff that works forthem. For the film industry, the set builders and makeup artists take the fall. Ifsomeone downloads a movie from the internet, that person may not go to see themovie in theaters or buy the DVD. If that happens then the production studios makeless profit or may not be able to recuperate the high costs of production. Thisleads to salary decreases for employees. It also leads to less financial backingfor both mainstream and independent filmmakers because investing thousands ormillions of dollars in a movie becomes even riskier.File sharing opponents also argue that file sharing could have a largerconsequence on the economy as a whole, in addition to the music, film, and gamingindustries. They fear that if file sharing is allowed to continue unchecked andgrow even larger, eventually more and more people will not feel the need to buythe media they want; instead they will download all of it. If enough people switchto downloading instead of purchasing, then the media industries may not makeenough money to keep producing. This could result in fewer people being interestedin going into the film, music, or gaming industries, because there would not be asmuch profit in it for them. On the very extreme end, file sharing opponents fearthat the media industries might be forced to fold, causing a massive loss of jobsand gaping hole in the economy.One thing that the media industries might do to compensate for a lack of sales isto raise prices. The film industry might raise ticket prices at movie theaters andthe cost of DVDs, the music industry might start charging more for CDs, and thecomputer gaming industry could start charging more for its games. All of thesethings are already fairly expensive, and increasing their prices would hurt theconsumer even more. As the prices become higher and higher people will start
Leave a Comment
where's your see also and references sections?