macrae11 wrote:I don't think there are an equal amount of legitimate arguments for and against file sharing at all. I think there are far more arguments that people make for file sharing as opposed to against file sharing but the vast majority of them are self aggrandizing bullshit.
Precisely. Not even close. Unless you are an ISP, or Google, or a manufacturer of hardware to playback your downloads, you have no reason to be against content creators having control of what happens with their works.
If music really is $.99 a song, why does a kid need an iPod that can hold 40,000? Because they,
*nudge nudge - wink wink*, know where the files really are coming from.
macrae11 wrote:I've got no problem with a YouTube type scenario. As you pointed out the content owners are the one's receiving the advertising royalties. Also artists have the choice to take there content down via DMCA takedown notices. It's not great for smaller artists because the barrier to entry is a little too high IMO, and drafting DMCA notices can be a full time job, however it's better than nothing. Sites where the creators have no say, no pay, no choice are not at all in the same ballpark and this is where the majority of pirates are getting their content from.
Sites like YouTube are not where the majority of pirated music downloads are coming from. It's the full service, torrent and "file sharing" providers where you can get the latest Daft Punk album in your choice of file type, all at the price of a Google search, which they claim filtering out would cause irreparable damage to the interwebs.