Marydee Ojala  addressesthe issue of legality of sharing internet content in the article  “Peering at Econtent” published in EContent in December 2000.   In mocking what was a recent event with Napster, Ojala  points out that sharing is a normal adult activity that occurs in many realms.   She uses the example of sharing food, ideas, work, files,  talents, etc. among other friends and colleagues.  Sharing  food and sharing efiles has a far-fetched relationship.   One  does not have a copyright whereas the other does.

   The article  described how Napster was brought to court because it was charged with illegal  sharing of music files that had copyrights. Theytried using the court ruling from 1992 that the Rio player did not violatethe laws but a lawyer, who specialized in internet law, clarified the issue.  “It (the Rio) wasn’t copying, according to Neil A. Smith,  it was‘shifting information.’”  Howdoes this clarify?  This lays the ground foreven more copyright violations.  One could, accordingto the difference between copying  and shifting, state they weren’tcopying anything; rather they were just shiftinginformation.  Reprinting a book than becomes shiftingthe information to paper.  Illegal copying of moviescould become shifting informationto another videocassette.   Instead of solvingthe dilemma, it creates more of one.

   Ojala strongest  argument for sharing is the results it has for companies. Employers have foundthat sharing actually increases profits and employees become more productive.  “Hoarding information is becoming recognized as counterproductive…”  Ojala stated. Privacy laws, on the other hand, seem  to be destructive towards team building, especially in multinational companies.   A balance needs to occur but it doesn’t seem like aneasy  task.  Peer-to peer file transfersare rationalized  in many ways including enjoyment, edification, entertainment,and education.

   In agreement  with Ojala’s mockery of which classifies as infringement and which technologies  don’t, it becomes clear that copyright laws need some redefinition with the  evolvingtechnology.   If, in one case, copying is legal and yet in another similar case it is not, becomes a clear that there isinconsistencyin the law. As technology keeps advancingand moreinformation is available to an individual, it seems reasonable toacceptthe new technologies to share it, including such programs as Napster.  Everyone benefits when knowledge is shared. Those who producemusic, get their music out to everyone, not just who can afford.  Researchers can distribute their results, which might helpanothermake the final connection for a cure.  Sadly, I think much of the debate against peer-to-peer filing sharing is simplymoneydriven. Producers may not feel like they aregettingall the money they deserve or earned when such openness occurs.  Contrary to this, however, I think that sharing would increasethe wealth and make it more widespread.

Source: Ojala, Marydee.  “Peering at Econtent.” EContent 23.1 (2000): 6.