See the dis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

See the dis - turn up ExampleWhat is more important is the guinea pig impartingred and the copyrights tie to the content. Thus, if there has been a absent of some content that has been protected by copy right, then this means of file sharing is considered to be iniquitous. On the new(prenominal) hand, if the content is not protected by copyright, then file sharing may or downloading may not be illegal. Thesis The main reason why unauthorized file sharing is illegal in most countries is that it is considered equitable to theft. Arguments However, sharing or downloading may not always classify as theft. The famous economist and noble prizewinner, F. A. Hayek explains how conventional retention rights and copyrights are different in reference to their write out capacities. While it may not be possible for the supply of a material property to be immeasurable, it may very likely be that an in clear endeavor has an unlimited supply (Hayek, pp. 23-25). Consequently, be driveway there is an unlimited supply of an intangible asset, accessing that object may not affect the availability of that object to anyone. This implies that theft, where one takes the object of possession away from the possessor cannot materialize in case of the intangible asset because the owner would be quiet posses the intangible object. Thus, in essence, unauthorized file transfer is not illegal. Karl Sigfrid, the author of the op-ed submission, who has been arguing in the kick upstairs of decriminalizing file sharing and downloading, has also argued along similar lines to support his stance. Another strong arguments that have oft being used to support the imposition on copyrights and thus, to make file transfers illegal is that of the potential red that the owner of the file or the programme might have when his files are transferred to people. Take the instance of a music composer who is at evil when his music files are transferred to others. However, at a closer look the trans fer of such files does not bring about any loss to the owner because in the end the owner still has an access to his files at the equal time when others do (Lemely, pp. 30-34). More importantly, many artists, musicians, and composer have renowned how file sharing benefits them by providing a forum for displaying and publicizing their work. Despite these arguments, the practice of file transfer and downloading is illegal when the file is copyrighted. This is because the owners of the intellectual property (the files that are transferred) state that their intangible property is subject to the same protection as a tangible asset because that intellectual property has some value attached to it. In other words downloading files without the permission of the owner is the same as encroaching on a private property or stealing. Skeptics may argue against this notion by explaining how stealing causes a loss to an individual. On the other hand, the acquisition of the files via file sharing d oes not add up to the cost of the owner. Nor does it cause any form of a loss of value, so comparing intellectual property with a tangible possession is absurd. However, there needs to be a closer inspection of how the usage of the intellectual property without paying for it is a cost to the owner in terms of the loss of the potential monetary benefits that he/she may have been entitled to receive otherwise. Using that intellectual