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

See the dis - Essay ExampleWhat is more important is the content impartationred and the copyrights attached to the content. Thus, if there has been a transfer of some content that has been protect by copy right, then this means of level sharing is considered to be penal. On the other 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 dread prizewinner, F. A. Hayek explains how conventional prop rights and copyrights are different in reference to their supply capacities. While it may not be possible for the supply of a significant property to be unlimited, it may very likely be that an intangible inclination has an unlimited supply (Hayek, pp. 23-25). Consequently, because there is an unlimited s upply 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 owner cannot materialize in case of the intangible asset because the owner would still 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 favor of decriminalizing file sharing and downloading, has in addition argued along similar lines to support his stance. Another strong arguments that have often being used to support the imposition on copyrights and thus, to make file transfers illegal is that of the potential injury 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 loss when his music files are transferred to others. However, at a closer look the transfer of such files does not br ing about any loss to the owner because in the end the owner still has an access to his files at the same time when others do (Lemely, pp. 30-34). More importantly, many artists, musicians, and composer have noted 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 row downloading files without the permission of the owner is the same as encroaching on a private property or stealth. 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 does not add up to the cost of the ow ner. 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 physical exercise 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 entitle to receive otherwise. Using that intellectual