Talk:File sharing

message: Currently, whether or not Usenet requires its own paragraph, though this is an ongoing series of issues that began with the removal of an uncited program called linker34, where a third opinion was sought, with discussion here. The removal of this program progressed to arguments about Napster, an unsuccessful WP:WQA, an indef block of one of the editors under WP:LEGAL (now retracted), and a lack of fun in general. More input greatly appreciated, since discussion of content on the talk page is becoming increasingly nonexistent. 03:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  File sharing 

message: File sharing in canada shoyuld be removed cos it is against of wikipedia policy and does not fits with article...
Kindly discuss this...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.77.203.197 (talk • contribs) 
:Against which policy? Mindmatrix 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  File sharing in canada should be removed... 

message: Worldwide File Sharing Website Worldwide File Sharing Website  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorson (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link 

message: This is a survey conducted by the EU that stats that P2P software is not responsible for the woes of the content industry among other things. Something regarding music downloads that might be interesting. AngelFire3423 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: The article uses the term "illegal file sharing" in many places, mostly to refer the sharing of copyright protected contents. This is done without stating "where it is illegal" and therefore transmit the idea that sharing copyright protected contents is illegal everywhere, what is not the case. 
The legality of file sharing depends on the laws of each country, so the use of "illegal file sharing" without any further detail is confusing and misleading.
I propose to change the term "illegal file sharing" for any other non-ambiguous term, like "copyright protected file sharing" or something more specific in any place the term is used.
:I just looked at the uses of the term in the article, and they all appear correct within each context.Objective3000 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of "Illegal file sharing" term 

message: I will establish a peer-to-peer file sharing article (prior redirect to this article), a lot of material in this article is about peer-to-peer filesharing, so I will move the detailed stuff into the new article. See also peer-to-peer article/talk page.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will establish peer-to-peer file sharing article 

message: Paul Ruch, please stop adding the Kazaa Lite text to the article. http://filesharingz.com/faqs/kazaa_lite/about_kazaa.php is not a reliable source and cannot be used to reference the text being added. Further, the text being added is awkwardly formed and generally inappropriate; it would be better suited on the Kazaa Lite article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazaa Lite 

message: Ars Technica reported on a NPD report on some statistics on the use of filesharing and how it relates to illegal downloading here.AngelFire3423 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some statistics about filesharing 

message: Ken Masters uploaded this section and only referenced his own work. While the work itself seems legitimate, the act of self promotion on wikipedia violates WP:SOAP. If he wants to add this section again, he should do it in such a way that it does not constitute self-promotion. Random2001 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Filesharing 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I'm placing here a poorly sourced section that adds nothing to help readers understand the effects of file sharing.
"Industry reports and industry-sponsored studies routinely report huge losses from file sharing , with estimates of losses due to piracy usually in the range of billions per year, and of hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. However, many of these reports were heavily criticised  for flaws in methodology."
The sourcing is problematic and does not support the text. For example, the first two reports are measuring different things. The IPI Policy study (2007) attempts to quantify losses to US industries over a period of twelve months, whereas the ICC report (2010) forecasts European economic losses for the next five years. Not a major issue. But we are then informed that "many of these reports" have been criticised, followed by a vague New York Times opinion piece (published in 2004). The article argues convincingly that not every free download equals a lost sale. However, this is irrelevant because the studies above apply lower substitution rates, ranging from ten to forty-five percent (one in every ten downloads is a lost sale). The Oberholzer-Strumpf paper is good but it's already covered in the section immediately below. Nor do we need seven citations to buttress a statement that is uncontested when one reliable secondary source will suffice. Most importantly, this section does nothing to improve our understanding of the effects of file sharing. Much better to only describe what academics and independent economists have to say.  — ThePowerofX 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: About wording - please feel free to fix it and adjust the references, they're clearly very far from being perfect. On the other hand, with this number of WP:RS mentioning industry position, it is a clear violation of both WP:V and WP:WEIGHT to remove it. The whole line of argument "this section does nothing to improve our understanding of the effects of file sharing" is fundamentally flawed, essentially arguing truth opposed to verifiability (same as argument that "Oberholzer-Strumpf paper is good" - as Wikipedia editors, we are not allowed to judge what is "good" and what is "bad", we're only allowed to look for published opinions and balance them proportionally to coverage they've obtained (and not by our judgement it is good or bad)). Industry opinion is supported with multiple WP:RS, and as such clearly belongs to the article per WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Ipsign (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Quotes from relevant policies: from WP:V: "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.". from WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.". Number of references provided shows that POV of industry is clearly significant, so it should be mentioned in the article (at least to allow to rebut it). Therefore, industry POV belongs to the article, while the wording is a very different story - feel free to edit the wording, but the facts should be preserved per WP:PRESERVE: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary.". Ipsign (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't get to argue Undue and Verifiability if the references provided do not support the text. Problems have been identified with the souring (that you acknowledge but expect other people to correct). Please do not restore this text again without addressing expressed concerns. Secondly, your argument might be construed as WP:POINTy when you say the industry position should be "mentioned in the article (at least to allow to rebut it)". The industry position is more nuanced than you contend and a random collection of links does nothing to elucidate the topic. I made care to supply reliable secondary sources tracing each study, fairly summarising both sides; thus far, you have yet to furnish a single one. To be clear, when I remarked "the Oberholzer-Strumpf paper is good" I intended to convey the message it's a notable study by respected economists that was disseminated widely (i.e. we should describe it). High quality sources are required and academic papers by independent researchers are most welcome. That is how Wikipedia expects us to proceed. Let us describe the real effects of file sharing using the most reliable sources. Anything else is a distraction. If you want something in the article that reflects how industry authored studies have a tendency to rate damages on the extreme side, we can simply amend David Glenn's quote to read: "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file sharing hurts sales", though not always to the precise degree "the record industry would like the public to believe." Clear and concise.  — ThePowerofX 11:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please clarify: a) which exactly portions of the recent text were not supported? (I contend that all statements I've wrote were indeed supported); b) which portions of IPI paragraph (which you've deleted earlier) were not supported? If you want exact wording - please restore IPI paragraph. In addition - please familiriaze yourself with WP:PRESERVE; the whole arguing along the lines "you didn't provide precise wording (whatever it means), so I will remove it" is extremely questionable. As I see it, this whole discussion (with you blocking all attempts to change the article to reflect significant POV) as a difficult WP:OWN case (I see "please don't restore..." as a 100% clear indication of it). As for your proposal - it is obviously not enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and proportional requirement in WP:V. Ipsign (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please examine all references again. We are critiquing industry-backed studies published in 2006, 2007 and 2010 with a number of sources. The New York Times piece is dated 2004. Need I spell it out for you? The 2005 research is disputed by a post on pro filesharing blog Ars Technica and the ZDNet page that describes the study has expired but you are so determined to criticise the MPAA we must delve into the Internet archive to retrieve the original article. The only expressed criticism found in the more recent BBC story is directed toward the Digital Economy Bill. Campaigners were worried the British Government would use the 2010 study to justify Internet blocking. The methodology isn't faulted anywhere in the article. These are grouped together in a less-than-clear manner leaving the reader to discern some tangible connection (presumably all industry-backed research is baloney, so pay no attention). Please remember that we are meant to be describing the effects of file sharing. If the general consensus (i.e. reliable secondary sources) is that industry backed reports are least reliable, then let's include a sentence or quotation to that regard. But as I said above, we don't need several random sources when one will suffice. My proposal satisfies concerns perfectly. Once we have worked something into the page, we can move forward describing file sharing's effects on the movie industry.  — ThePowerofX 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable studies

message: "In a 2011 study into the impact downloading has on society by the Swiss government it concluded that file sharing is not detrimental to copyright owners."
The Swiss report is more nuanced than this. It acknowledges that digital piracy is rampant and notes that most economic studies conclude downloading decreases sales, but adds there are major "cultural" benefits -- such as downloaders listening to more music, regularly attending concerts, etc. -- and the price of doing something about it is not cost effective. Besides, if most studies say illicit downloading is bad for copyright owners, our article should reflect that.  — ThePowerofX 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Swiss report

message: It seems that the section on file sharing is currently weighted towards the negative, based largely on a study by Dr. George Barker and an article summarising some recent papers written by Glenn Peoples.  The question is whether the weight is proportionate or not.  Regarding the following paragraph:
"In total, 75% of P2P downloaders responded that if P2P were not available they would have purchased either through paid sites only (9%), CDs only (17%) or through CDs and pay sites (49%). Only 25% of people say they would not have bought the music if it were not available on P2P for free. This clearly suggests P2P network availability is reducing music demand of 75% of music downloaders which is quite contrary to Andersen and Frenz's much published claim."
I don't think the "reducing music demand" conclusion definitely follows.  It certainly follows that some music which is downloaded/shared illegally would otherwise have been purchased, but file-sharing also increases consumer exposure to products and brands, which can lead to people buying related products that they wouldn't otherwise have considered.  Having read through the paper, this "increased exposure" factor has been entirely ignored, and while it may not be enough to offset the lost sales from the genuine "getting X for free instead of buying", it isn't quite as clear-cut as Barker's study makes out.
Some alternative points were written here:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92723/cria-trying-to-debunk-industry-canadas-pro-p2p-study/
It remains to be seen what sort of scientific studies the Industry-Canada group and others will come out with to attempt to debunk what these above studies have been saying.  The way the current Wikipedia article is worded comes across to me as saying that those claiming that file-sharing has a significant negative impact on sales have essentially won the argument, but since this spate of studies is very recent, I'm not convinced that it will be shown to represent the last word with time. Tws45 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The ANU College of Law paper (by Dr George Barker) makes no assessment of the scholarly literature, one way or the other, and it's misleading to imply this study is connected to, or commissioned by, the Canadian Record Industry Association, as the ZeroPiad blog does, when the research is independent. The reason why this article says 'most academic studies conclude filesharing has a negative effect on sales' is because that is what high quality sources say. Both Oberholzer and Strumpf―who maintain loses are not as large as industry groups claim―agree that most studies find piracy has a negative effect on sales. But nothing is set in stone and we can update this article to reflect what the latest independent research shows.  — ThePowerofX 10:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the grammar of that last sentence to add some clarity to the quote, "This clearly suggests P2P network availability is reducing music demand of 75% of music downloaders which is quite contrary to Andersen and Frenz's much published claim." I hadn't even noticed this subject in the Talk page before I made the edit; the final sentence was contextually misleading by way of grammar. — Wax (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  George R.Barker study 

message: === Proposed merge with File sharing in North Korea ===
Not nearly important enough to be its own article. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is not what the article is about. Xrt6L (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly 74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers 

message: Not nearly important enough to be its own article. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[File sharing in North Korea]] 

message: Not nearly important enough to be its own article. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[File sharing in Japan]] 

message: *No. The nature of file sharing is very different based on the nature of the legal system and the culture, which differ by country. They have clearly been treated as distinct topics in RS: here is a 76 page academic article on file sharing in Japan, here is an 88 page report about file sharing in North Korea. Also, why not File sharing in the United Kingdom and File sharing in Canada, GSK? Xrt6L (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is not what the article is about. Xrt6L (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly 74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: No extradition has been granted. My edit comment was missing claims.  Lostinlodos (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dotcom extradition  

message: I removed an addition to the lead that should be discussed. First, a few minor items. Napster was illegal. Napster (pay service) is legal. YouTube is not downloading. But, more importantly, this doesn’t belong in the lead. File sharing is not about copyrighted material. Adding this to the lead sways the article towards distribution of copyrighted materials. There is a section on copyright concerns. Placing such discussion in the lead gives undue weight to piracy. Indeed, “sharing” is a poor word to use when discussing anything related to legal issues as illegal distribution is not “sharing” any more than robbing a bank is sharing. Objective3000 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to lead 

message: This article uses a modern definition of file sharing as understood by the general public but not how the term has been historically used in all it's senses. "File sharing" prior too and in the early days of the computers was largely about in a literal sense about sharing files between computers by some means. As modems and client-server networks (including both LANs/private WANs and the public internet) became a thing "File sharing" in the more modern sense took to mean electronic/software methods using file transfer protocols and programs and networking & modem tech to allow files to be transfered between computers including servers/client setups. This is where protocols like Microsoft's SMB, Apple's Appletalk and Unix file sharing protocols came to be. Also dial-up modem communication software and BBS software provided a means for non-networked computers to transfer files including the public prior to the internet being opened to the public in the early to mid-90's. P2P file sharing, cloud file sharing (Dropbox, Google Drive, iCloud, etc only came to be in the 2000's (thought the first P2P file sharing service Napster technically debuted in 1999). The imtermet brough file sharing via Email attachments, Usenet, Web sites, FTP, etc. Since the 2000's what most people think of when you mention "File sharing" is illegal/semi-legal P2P file sharing services like  Napster, Limewire, Grokster, and BitTorrent, which can be used for illegal fire sharing but also legal file sharing too. More recently with the rise of the Cloud you also have Cloud file sync services and cloud storage services in the public consciousnesses like Apple's iCloud, MS OneDrive, Google Drive, etc. So while these latter services might be what people mostly think of with file sharing these days, they are not the entirety of what constitutes "File sharing" between computers.  Thus what we really need to do here expand the article to cover all the types of file sharing methods that one could bee (or have been) referring to when using the term "File sharing" such LAN file sharing, Linux CL tools like wget, FTP/SFTP, etc, BBS file sharing, Usenet file sharing, Web page file sharing, dial-up modem to modem file sharing methods, transferring files over crossover serial cables connected between to PC's, IR file sharing, WiFi/Bluetooth device to device direct file sharing, transferring files by disk via sneakernet, etc. For the methods designed to be used on LANS & private WAN, dial-up modem to modem, directly linked computers, direct WiFi, and sneakernet, we can summarize the info and link to larger articles on those sub-topics. We can then leave the majority of text in this article to the subject of P2P and cloud file sharing as it is currently. 
 Below is the basic timeline of various file sharing protocols/methods in order of the first appearance:
 1950's - Sneakernet, 1960's - Early Modems, 1970's - ARPANET, 1980's - LAN networks (Tokenring, Ethernet, Appletalk, etc), Internet (FTP, etc), BBS's, & online services (like CompuServe), 1990's - Web  sites, Email attachments, IrDA, Napster/P2P file sharing, 2000's - Bluetooth file sharing, WiFi Ad-hoc/WiFi direct file sharing, cloud file storage/sharing. 
As you can seen, file sharing is much more then just P2P and Cloud services and goes much farther back then them and thus this article should reflect that. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's definition of "File sharing" is too limited 

message: In addition to the mentioned "file sharing" methods, I would like to add a little information to this article. We may hear a lot about free file upload sites, but we may wonder if they are secure enough to save or share our files safely. So we may talk about the providers of these services such as Mediafire.com, Bestfile.io and many of them. In my experience with the providers of these services, I found that they offer something really great to facilitate file sharing, so I always recommend knowing where to put your files Alphatech500 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be associated with bestfile.io. If so, read WP:COI. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be deleted? or modified? Please advise. Thanks Alphatech500 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  File sharing using third party service