In recent years, internet piracy or "file sharing" of copyrighted material has gained much popularity. It is a topic that has incessantly sparked debate and has even received global attention. Although on the surface the act of file sharing may seem harmless, it is far from it. Each year, film and record production companies as well as software and video game development companies suffer from billions of dollars in lost profits. This loss comes as a direct result of internet piracy. Many agree that file sharing is unethical and consider it to be no different than downright theft. On the other hand, there are those that support file sharing and claim that their actions are easily justified and ethical. This essay will provide a brief overview and history of file sharing, will consider the arguments of each side, and will offer my personal observations and stance on the issue.

File sharing, put simply, is the process of making available and distributing files via the internet. Many freely developed applications have been made available that simplify this process, providing the ability to easily search for, download, and upload any piece of digital content imaginable. These applications are commonly referred to as P2P or peer-to-peer applications as they allow individuals (peers) to directly connect with other peers to share files. By themselves, such applications are useless; a central network must be available that allows each peer to see one another. These networks are typically hosted or paid for by the developers of the P2P application. Although P2P networks are probably the most common and accessible to the average internet user, there are a host of other applications and/or methods that provide the same services and in many cases faster access to more content. As stated previously, typically users have access to all types of digital content; this content includes but is not limited to: film, music or audio, software, video games, pictures, and documents. As one might have guessed, this content is not all free from copyright. In fact, the majority of the media and software that is distributed is copyrighted.

The process of sharing files is one that is not necessarily new. FTP (File Transfer Protocol) has existed and been heavily used prior to the inception of e-mail. The growth of file sharing on P2P networks and other file sharing methods can probably be attributed to the advances in audio compression in the mid 90's. Specifically, the compression format known as MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 or "MP3" for short has allowed for music and other audio content to be transferred into a highly compressed format whilst still retaining (close to) the quality of the original source. Shortly after this format became available, individuals around the world began "backing up" their music collections and sharing these small MP3 files with friends. Individuals began to upload full length albums to web sites that offered free hosting. Inevitably, it was recognized by the web hosts and the copyrighted files began to quickly disappear. Frustrated, these individuals began to look for alternate means to distribute their music. In 1999, "Napster," the first P2P application was developed. Without a doubt, Napster is responsible for the growth in file sharing popularity as its main focus was to offer an easy way for users to share their music collection. Today, file sharing and internet piracy has grown to new proportions. Not only have additional applications and methods been developed, but broadband internet access has become faster and more affordable. This combination is already having a huge impact on the film, music, and software industry and the problem is growing rapidly as file sharing becomes more widespread. With its rise in popularity and acceptance by many, file sharing has sparked debate that questions the ethics of those that embrace it. In the United States, the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is illegal. Thus, is the sharing of copyrighted files also illegal or should it be considered theft? Does the digital format in which the files are transferred protect the distributors from the law? These questions are just a couple of the many that arise and are argued by advocates and opponents alike.
Proponents of file sharing often suggest that information should be "free." They feel that they have a right to the information contained within the content they distribute and that such distribution is a form of expression. American supporters sometimes justify these rights by citing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment pledges that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." They equate the distribution of copyrighted material with freedom of speech and expression.

Advocates of file sharing also support the notion that internet piracy has no economic impact and/or if it does, the impact is insignificant and can be easily defended. File sharers rationalize their actions based on the argument that they "would not have purchased the content anyway." In addition, it is argued that freely obtaining a digital copy of something does not have any impact because a tangible, physical item is not being stolen. Thus, it is a seemingly victimless crime.

Last, file sharers argue that the content that they are freely obtaining (stealing) is not worth the price. Perhaps they consider a certain piece of software, for example, to be poorly written. Supporters profess that software companies should be penalized for distributing low quality software with what they consider high price tags. Another closely related line of reasoning is the idea that they are merely "testing" the product before they purchase it; in essence, they are exercising their own "try before you buy" policy.

Opponents of file sharing heavily criticize and question the ethics of those that support the aforementioned arguments. In response to the above rationalization citing the First Amendment and the "freedom of information," opponents would assert that the First Amendment does not include illegal activities. Just as obscenity in public is not protected under freedom of speech, distributing copyrighted material is not protected. The notion that all information should be free is considered absurd. Who granted file sharers with a privilege to all information free of charge?

Those that are in opposition argue that file sharing does indeed have a negative impact economically. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, "In 2005, MPAA studios lost $2.3 billion worldwide to Internet piracy alone. Posting movies on a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) service or an unauthorized website is akin to giving illegal copies to millions of people." Regardless of whether or not a tangible item is stolen, a repercussion still results. Unfortunately, not all who embrace the "try before you buy" mentality follow through with their decision to buy the product(s) after testing something they would deem worth purchasing.

The notion that the item is not worth the price, and thus it is reasonable to assume that it can be obtained freely is, according to anti file sharing activists, absolutely ridiculous. Such an argument can be compared with the following car theft scenario. Let's suppose that one is interested in a new Mercedes-Benz luxury automobile. However, that person does not feel that the automobile's price tag of $85,000 is reasonable and decides instead they are going to simply steal it. Is such an action ethical and justifiable?

It is my personal opinion that file sharing is unethical. I feel that the justifications of those that support it are not valid. All content that can be converted into a digital format should not be made freely available simply because it is easy to distribute. The films, music, software, and video games that are being produced costs companies an enormous amount of money to produce. Contrary to the arguments of its proponents, file sharing is not a victimless crime. As stated earlier, the economical impacts are enormous. Not only does internet piracy affect big business, it also affects small companies that have yet to establish themselves. File sharing of copyrighted material is nothing more than anonymous theft, and like most, I consider theft unethical. According to dictionary.com, a copyright is "the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc." File sharers do not posses such rights. As such, they are flagrantly breaking the law.

File sharing has grown and will most likely continue to grow for many years. Although anti-piracy organizations actively seek to shut down and prevent its spread, its very nature will not allow it. Individuals will continue to find alternate methods of distribution. Internet speeds will continually become faster, allowing for quicker distribution. Clearly, internet piracy is a significant issue. Although its history is relatively short, it is an issue that should not be neglected. In this essay, the arguments of both sides have been considered and my personal perspective offered.