File sharing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:20, 12 October 2024

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents or electronic books. Common methods of storage, transmission and dispersion include removable media, centralized servers on computer networks, Internet-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer networking.

File sharing technologies, such as BitTorrent, are integral to modern media piracy, as well as the sharing of scientific data and other free content.

History

Files were first exchanged on removable media. Computers were able to access remote files using filesystem mounting, bulletin board systems (1978), Usenet (1979), and FTP servers (1970's). Internet Relay Chat (1988) and Hotline (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through chat and to exchange files. The mp3 encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and substantially reduced the size of audio files, grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, MP3.com and Audiogalaxy were established, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was unanimously passed, and the first mp3 player devices were launched.^[1]

In June 1999, Napster was released as an unstructured centralized peer-to-peer system,^[2] requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In December 1999, Napster was sued by several recording companies and lost in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc..^[3] In the case of Napster, it has been ruled that an online service provider could not use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the DMCA if they had control of the network with a server.^[4]

Gnutella, eDonkey2000, and Freenet were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. Gnutella, released in March, was the first decentralized file-sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no central point of failure. In July, Freenet was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the eDonkey2000 client and server software was released.^{[citation needed]}

In March 2001, Kazaa was released. Its FastTrack network was distributed, though, unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as Morpheus off of the FastTrack network.^{[citation needed]} In October 2001, the MPAA and the RIAA filed a lawsuit against the developers of Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster^[5]^[6] that would lead to the US Supreme Court's MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. decision in 2005.

Shortly after its loss in court, Napster was shut down to comply with a court order. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its growth.^[7] The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the LimeWire client and BitTorrent protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file-sharing program despite bundled malware and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit that effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.

From 2002 through 2003, a number of BitTorrent services were established, including Suprnova.org, isoHunt, TorrentSpy, and The Pirate Bay. In September 2003, the RIAA began filing lawsuits against users of P2P file sharing networks such as Kazaa.^[8] As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). Also in 2003, the MPAA started to take action against BitTorrent sites, leading to the shutdown of Torrentse and Sharelive in July 2003.^[9] With the shutdown of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the Razorback2 eDonkey server and temporarily took down The Pirate Bay.^[10]

"The File Sharing Act was launched by Chairman Towns in 2009, this act prohibited the use of applications that allowed individuals to share federal information amongst one another. On the other hand, only specific file sharing applications were made available to federal computers" (the United States.Congress.House). In 2009, the Pirate Bay trial ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker. The decision was appealed, leading to a second guilty verdict in November 2010. In October 2010, Limewire was forced to shut down following a court order in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC but the Gnutella network remains active through open source clients like FrostWire and gtk-gnutella. Furthermore, multi-protocol file-sharing software such as MLDonkey and Shareaza adapted to support all the major file-sharing protocols, so users no longer had to install and configure multiple file-sharing programs.^{[citation needed]}

On January 19, 2012, the United States Department of Justice shut down the popular domain of Megaupload (established 2005). The file sharing site has claimed to have over 50,000,000 people a day.^[11] Kim Dotcom (formerly Kim Schmitz) was arrested with three associates in New Zealand on January 20, 2012 and is awaiting extradition.^[12]^[13] The case involving the downfall of the world's largest and most popular file sharing site was not well received, with hacker group Anonymous bringing down several sites associated with the take-down.^[11] In the following days, other file sharing sites began to cease services; FileSonic blocked public downloads on January 22,^[14] with Fileserve following suit on January 23.^[15]

In 2021 a European Citizens' Initiative "Freedom to Share" started collecting signatures in order to get the European Commission to discuss (and eventually make rules) on this subject, which is controversial.^[16]

Techniques used for video sharing

From the early 2000s until the mid 2010s, online video streaming was usually based on the Adobe Flash Player. After more and more vulnerabilities in Adobe's flash became known, YouTube switched to HTML5 based video playback in January 2015.^[17]

Types

Peer-to-peer file sharing

Peer-to-peer file sharing is based on the peer-to-peer (P2P) application architecture. Shared files on the computers of other users are indexed on directory servers. P2P technology was used by popular services like Napster and LimeWire. The most popular protocol for P2P sharing is BitTorrent.

File sync and sharing services

Cloud-based file syncing and sharing services implement automated file transfers by updating files from a dedicated sharing directory on each user's networked devices. Files placed in this folder also are typically accessible through a website and mobile app and can be easily shared with other users for viewing or collaboration. Such services have become popular via consumer-oriented file hosting services such as Dropbox and Google Drive. With the rising need of sharing big files online easily, new open access sharing platforms have appeared, adding even more services to their core business (cloud storage, multi-device synchronization, online collaboration), such as ShareFile, Tresorit, WeTransfer, or Hightail.

rsync is a more traditional program released in 1996 which synchronizes files on a direct machine-to-machine basis.

Data synchronization in general can use other approaches to share files, such as distributed file systems, version control, or mirrors.

Academic file sharing

In addition to file sharing for the purposes of entertainment, academic file sharing has become a topic of increasing concern,^[18]^[19]^[20] as it is deemed to be a violation of academic integrity at many schools.^[18]^[19]^[21] Academic file sharing by companies such as Chegg and Course Hero has become a point of particular controversy in recent years.^[22] This has led some institutions to provide explicit guidance to students and faculty regarding academic integrity expectations relating to academic file sharing.^[23]^[24]

Public opinion of file sharing

In 2004, there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing.^[25] According to a CBS News poll in 2009, 58% of Americans who follow the file-sharing issue, considered it acceptable "if a person owns the music CD and shares it with a limited number of friends and acquaintances"; with 18- to 29-year-olds, this percentage reached as much as 70%.^[26]

In his survey of file-sharing culture, Caraway (2012) noted that 74.4% of participants believed musicians should accept file sharing as a means for promotion and distribution.^[27] This file-sharing culture was termed as cyber socialism, whose legalisation was not the expected cyber-utopia.^{[clarification needed]}.^[28]^[29]

Economic impact

According to David Glenn, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file-sharing hurts sales".^[30] A literature review by Professor Peter Tschmuck found 22 independent studies on the effects of music file sharing. "Of these 22 studies, 14 – roughly two-thirds – conclude that unauthorized downloads have a 'negative or even highly negative impact' on recorded music sales. Three of the studies found no significant impact while the remaining five found a positive impact."^[31]^[32]

A study by economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf in 2004 concluded that music file sharing's effect on sales was "statistically indistinguishable from zero".^[33]^[34] This research was disputed by other economists, most notably Stan Liebowitz, who said Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had made multiple assumptions about the music industry "that are just not correct."^[33]^[35] In June 2010, Billboard reported that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had "changed their minds", now finding "no more than 20% of the recent decline in sales is due to sharing".^[36] However, citing Nielsen SoundScan as their source, the co-authors maintained that illegal downloading had not deterred people from being original. "In many creative industries, monetary incentives play a reduced role in motivating authors to remain creative. Data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file-sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. Since the advent of file sharing, the production of music, books, and movies has increased sharply."^[37] Glenn Peoples of Billboard disputed the underlying data, saying "SoundScan's number for new releases in any given year represents new commercial titles, not necessarily new creative works."^[38] The RIAA likewise responded that "new releases" and "new creative works" are two separate things. "[T]his figure includes re-releases, new compilations of existing songs, and new digital-only versions of catalog albums. SoundScan has also steadily increased the number of retailers (especially non-traditional retailers) in their sample over the years, better capturing the number of new releases brought to market. What Oberholzer and Strumpf found was better ability to track new album releases, not greater incentive to create them."^[39]

A 2006 study prepared by Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz, published by Industry Canada, was "unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada".^[40] The results of this survey were similarly criticized by academics and a subsequent revaluation of the same data by George R. Barker of the Australian National University reached the opposite conclusion.^[41] "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." Barker thus concludes; "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."^[42]

According to the 2017 paper "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" by the European Commission, illegal usage increases game sales, stating "The overall conclusion is that for games, illegal online transactions induce more legal transactions."^[43]

Market dominance

A paper in the journal Management Science found that file-sharing decreased the chance of survival for low ranked albums on music charts and increased exposure to albums that were ranked high on the music charts, allowing popular and well-known artists to remain on the music charts more often. This hurt new and less-known artists while promoting the work of already popular artists and celebrities.^[44]

A more recent study that examined pre-release file-sharing of music albums, using BitTorrent software, also discovered positive impacts for "established and popular artists but not newer and smaller artists." According to Robert G. Hammond of North Carolina State University, an album that leaked one month early would see a modest increase in sales. "This increase in sales is small relative to other factors that have been found to affect album sales."

"File-sharing proponents commonly argue that file-sharing democratizes music consumption by 'levelling the playing field' for new/small artists relative to established/popular artists, by allowing artists to have their work heard by a wider audience, lessening the advantage held by established/popular artists in terms of promotional and other support. My results suggest that the opposite is happening, which is consistent with evidence on file-sharing behaviour."^[45]

Billboard cautioned that this research looked only at the pre-release period and not continuous file sharing following a release date. "The problem in believing piracy helps sales is deciding where to draw the line between legal and illegal ... Implicit in the study is the fact that both buyers and sellers are required in order for pre-release file sharing to have a positive impact on album sales. Without iTunes, Amazon, and Best Buy, file-sharers would be just file sharers rather than purchasers. If you carry out the 'file-sharing should be legal' argument to its logical conclusion, today's retailers will be tomorrow's file-sharing services that integrate with their respective cloud storage services."^[46]

Availability

Many argue that file-sharing has forced the owners of entertainment content to make it more widely available legally through fees or advertising on-demand on the internet. In a 2011 report by Sandvine showed that Netflix traffic had come to surpass that of BitTorrent.^[47]

Copyright issues

File sharing raises copyright issues and has led to many lawsuits. In the United States, some of these lawsuits have even reached the Supreme Court. For example, in MGM v. Grokster, the Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held liable if their software is marketed as a tool for copyright infringement.

On the other hand, not all file sharing is illegal. Content in the public domain can be freely shared. Even works covered by copyright can be shared under certain circumstances. For example, some artists, publishers, and record labels grant the public a license for unlimited distribution of certain works, sometimes with conditions, and they advocate free content and file sharing as a promotional tool.^[48]

References

^ Adner, Ron (March 5, 2012). "From Walkman to iPod: What Music Tech Teaches Us About Innovation". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 21, 2022. Retrieved October 12, 2021.
^ Elser, Amy (March 25, 2005). Reliable distributed systems: technologies, Web services, and applications - Kenneth P. Birman - Google Books. Springer. ISBN 9780387215099. Archived from the original on September 5, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2012 – via Google Books.
^ Menta, Richard (December 9, 1999). "RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013.
^ "EFF: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law". W2.eff.org. Archived from the original on January 15, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
^ Woody, Todd (February 1, 2003). "The Race to Kill Kazaa". Wired.
^ Menta, Richard (October 3, 2001). "RIAA and MPAA sue Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaa". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved October 16, 2019.
^ Menta, Richard (July 20, 2001). "Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on March 28, 2012.
^ Dean, Katie (September 8, 2003). "RIAA Legal Landslide Begins". Wired. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
^ Röttgers, Janko (July 26, 2003). "Bittorrent-Webseiten unter Druck" [Bittorrent websites under pressure] (in German). heise online. Archived from the original on October 16, 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2019.
^ Motion Picture Association. "BELGIAN & SWISS AUTHORITIES BREAK RAZORBACK2: World's Largest P2P Facilitator Put Out of Illegal Business" (PDF). Motion Picture Association. Archived from the original on April 15, 2006. Retrieved January 5, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ ^a ^b Mufson, Steven (January 20, 2012). "Department of Justice site hacked after Megaupload shutdown, Anonymous claims credit. Washington Post". Washingtonpost.com. Archived from the original on January 23, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
^ Schneider, Joe (January 24, 2012). "Megaupload's Dotcom in Custody as New Zealand Awaits Extradition Request, Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on January 27, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
^ Leask, Anna (January 23, 2012). "Dotcom in custody ahead of bail decision". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on March 13, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2018.
^ Musil, Steven. "FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests". CNET. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
^ Lanxon, Nate. "Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests". Wired. Condé Nast Britain. Retrieved January 5, 2024.
^ Ernesto Van der Sar (December 17, 2020). ""Freedom to Share" Launches EU Citizens' Initiative to Legalize File-Sharing". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on February 18, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2021.
^ McCormick, Rich (January 27, 2015). "YouTube drops Flash for HTML5 video as default". The Verge. Archived from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
^ ^a ^b Rogerson, A.M. (2014). Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind. Semantic Scholar. S2CID 106581372.
^ ^a ^b Rogerson, A.M.; Basanta, G. (February 5, 2016). "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Academic Integrity in the Internet Age". Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer Nature. pp. 273–285. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55. ISBN 978-981-287-098-8. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ Eaton, S.E. (July 12, 2020). "Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary". International Studies in Educational Administration. 48 (1). Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management: 80–85. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ Butler, J. (April 15, 2020). "Arts & Sciences investigates Physics 192 academic integrity breach". Washington University Student Media, Inc. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ McKenzie, L. (May 13, 2018). "Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ "Information for Faculty: Note-sharing sites". Sheridan College. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ "Copyright for Students". Sheridan College. July 30, 2023. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ Delgado, Ray (March 17, 2004). "Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing". Stanford Report. Stanford University. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
^ "Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK". CBS News. February 11, 2009. Archived from the original on November 30, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
^ Caraway, Brett Robert (2012). "Survey of File-Sharing Culture". International Journal of Communication. USC Annenberg Press, Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2015.
^ Filby, Michael (2011). "Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulations for an Open Internet". Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. 6: 207. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
^ Filby, Michael (January 1, 2008). "Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons". International Journal of Private Law. 1 (1–2): 94–109. doi:10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435. ISSN 1753-6235. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
^ Glenn, David (July 17, 2008). "Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, D. C. Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved November 5, 2020.
^ Hart, Terry. More Evidence for Copyright Protection Archived February 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, copyhype.com, February 1, 2012. "The literature review looked at a 23rd study but did not classify it here since the author presented a mixed conclusion: the overall effect of unauthorized downloads is insignificant, but for unknown artists, there is a 'strongly negative' effect on recorded music sales."
^ AJ Sokolov, Daniel . Wissenschaftler: Studien über Tauschbörsen unbrauchbar Archived June 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, c't magazine, June 11, 2010.
^ ^a ^b Levine, Robert. Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, Bodley Head, February 2011, ISBN 1847921485.
^ Oberholzer, Felix; Koleman Strumpf. "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 13, 2008. Retrieved June 13, 2008.
^ Liebowitz, Stan J. (September 23, 2007). "How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?" (PDF). Intellectual Property: Copyright Law eJournal. ResearchGate GmbH. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1014399. Archived from the original on August 27, 2010. Retrieved December 13, 2023.
^ Peoples, Glenn. Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact Archived December 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. June 22, 2010.
^ Oberholzer & Strumpf. "File Sharing and Copyright" NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. "Artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form – many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars – suggesting a reduction in monetary incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic production."
^ Peoples, Glenn. Analysis: Are Musicians Losing the Incentive to Create? Archived November 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. July 26, 2010.
^ Friedlander, Joshua P. & Lamy, Jonathan. Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians Archived January 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine ifpi.org, July 19, 2010.
^ The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada Archived September 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz
^ Peoples, Glenn. A New Look at an Old Survey Finds P2P Hurts Music Purchases Archived February 6, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Billboard. February 2, 2012.
^ Barker, George R. Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs Archived February 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Social Science Research Network. January 23, 2012.
^ "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 20, 2018. Retrieved February 3, 2018.
^ Bhattacharjee, Sudip., Gopal, Ram D., Lertwachara, Kaveepan. Marsden, James R. & Telang, Rahul. The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts Archived February 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Management Science 2007.
^ Hammond. Robert G. "Profit Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry Archived May 23, 2012, at the Wayback Machine" May 2012. File sharing benefits mainstream albums such as pop music but not albums in niche genres such as indie music. ... Further, the finding that file sharing redistributes sales toward established/popular artists is inconsistent with claims made by proponents of file sharing that file-sharing democratizes music consumption."
^ Peoples, Glenn. Business Matters: Pre-release File Sharing Helps Album Sales, Says a Study. So Why Not Replicate This Legally? Archived May 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. May 22, 2012.
^ Global Internet Phenomena Report - Spring 2011 Archived January 13, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Sandvine Global Internet Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. May 12, 2011
^ Secure Federal File Sharing Act : Report (to Accompany H.r. 4098) (Including Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). United States. March 11, 2010. Archived from the original on September 20, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
^ Larrier, Travis (March 4, 2013). "Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)". The Shadow League. Archived from the original on July 20, 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2020.

External links

Media related to File sharing at Wikimedia Commons

[1] Adner, Ron (March 5, 2012). "From Walkman to iPod: What Music Tech Teaches Us About Innovation". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 21, 2022. Retrieved October 12, 2021.

[2] Elser, Amy (March 25, 2005). Reliable distributed systems: technologies, Web services, and applications - Kenneth P. Birman - Google Books. Springer. ISBN 9780387215099. Archived from the original on September 5, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2012 – via Google Books.

[3] Menta, Richard (December 9, 1999). "RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013.

[4] "EFF: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law". W2.eff.org. Archived from the original on January 15, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2012.

[5] Woody, Todd (February 1, 2003). "The Race to Kill Kazaa". Wired.

[6] Menta, Richard (October 3, 2001). "RIAA and MPAA sue Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaa". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved October 16, 2019.

[7] Menta, Richard (July 20, 2001). "Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet". MP3 Newswire. Archived from the original on March 28, 2012.

[8] Dean, Katie (September 8, 2003). "RIAA Legal Landslide Begins". Wired. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved November 1, 2019.

[9] Röttgers, Janko (July 26, 2003). "Bittorrent-Webseiten unter Druck" [Bittorrent websites under pressure] (in German). heise online. Archived from the original on October 16, 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2019.

[10] Motion Picture Association. "BELGIAN & SWISS AUTHORITIES BREAK RAZORBACK2: World's Largest P2P Facilitator Put Out of Illegal Business" (PDF). Motion Picture Association. Archived from the original on April 15, 2006. Retrieved January 5, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)

[megaupload_wp-11] Mufson, Steven (January 20, 2012). "Department of Justice site hacked after Megaupload shutdown, Anonymous claims credit. Washington Post". Washingtonpost.com. Archived from the original on January 23, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012.

[12] Schneider, Joe (January 24, 2012). "Megaupload's Dotcom in Custody as New Zealand Awaits Extradition Request, Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on January 27, 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2012.

[13] Leask, Anna (January 23, 2012). "Dotcom in custody ahead of bail decision". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on March 13, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2018.

[14] Musil, Steven. "FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests". CNET. Retrieved January 5, 2024.

[15] Lanxon, Nate. "Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests". Wired. Condé Nast Britain. Retrieved January 5, 2024.

[16] Ernesto Van der Sar (December 17, 2020). ""Freedom to Share" Launches EU Citizens' Initiative to Legalize File-Sharing". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on February 18, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2021.

[17] McCormick, Rich (January 27, 2015). "YouTube drops Flash for HTML5 video as default". The Verge. Archived from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved February 5, 2020.

[:0-18] Rogerson, A.M. (2014). Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind. Semantic Scholar. S2CID 106581372.

[:1-19] Rogerson, A.M.; Basanta, G. (February 5, 2016). "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Academic Integrity in the Internet Age". Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer Nature. pp. 273–285. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55. ISBN 978-981-287-098-8. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[AID_1-20] Eaton, S.E. (July 12, 2020). "Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary". International Studies in Educational Administration. 48 (1). Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management: 80–85. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[ASI_1-21] Butler, J. (April 15, 2020). "Arts & Sciences investigates Physics 192 academic integrity breach". Washington University Student Media, Inc. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[LT_1-22] McKenzie, L. (May 13, 2018). "Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[NSS_1-23] "Information for Faculty: Note-sharing sites". Sheridan College. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[CSG_1-24] "Copyright for Students". Sheridan College. July 30, 2023. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[25] Delgado, Ray (March 17, 2004). "Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing". Stanford Report. Stanford University. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008. Retrieved January 20, 2012.

[26] "Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK". CBS News. February 11, 2009. Archived from the original on November 30, 2011. Retrieved January 20, 2012.

[27] Caraway, Brett Robert (2012). "Survey of File-Sharing Culture". International Journal of Communication. USC Annenberg Press, Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2015.

[28] Filby, Michael (2011). "Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulations for an Open Internet". Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. 6: 207. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2021.

[cybers-29] Filby, Michael (January 1, 2008). "Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons". International Journal of Private Law. 1 (1–2): 94–109. doi:10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435. ISSN 1753-6235. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved December 28, 2021.

[HigherEdu-30] Glenn, David (July 17, 2008). "Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, D. C. Archived from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved November 5, 2020.

[31] Hart, Terry. More Evidence for Copyright Protection Archived February 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, copyhype.com, February 1, 2012. "The literature review looked at a 23rd study but did not classify it here since the author presented a mixed conclusion: the overall effect of unauthorized downloads is insignificant, but for unknown artists, there is a 'strongly negative' effect on recorded music sales."

[32] AJ Sokolov, Daniel . Wissenschaftler: Studien über Tauschbörsen unbrauchbar Archived June 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, c't magazine, June 11, 2010.

[levine-33] Levine, Robert. Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, Bodley Head, February 2011, ISBN 1847921485.

[34] Oberholzer, Felix; Koleman Strumpf. "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 13, 2008. Retrieved June 13, 2008.

[HRI_1-35] Liebowitz, Stan J. (September 23, 2007). "How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?" (PDF). Intellectual Property: Copyright Law eJournal. ResearchGate GmbH. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1014399. Archived from the original on August 27, 2010. Retrieved December 13, 2023.

[36] Peoples, Glenn. Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact Archived December 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. June 22, 2010.

[37] Oberholzer & Strumpf. "File Sharing and Copyright" NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. "Artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form – many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars – suggesting a reduction in monetary incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic production."

[38] Peoples, Glenn. Analysis: Are Musicians Losing the Incentive to Create? Archived November 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. July 26, 2010.

[39] Friedlander, Joshua P. & Lamy, Jonathan. Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians Archived January 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine ifpi.org, July 19, 2010.

[40] The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada Archived September 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz

[41] Peoples, Glenn. A New Look at an Old Survey Finds P2P Hurts Music Purchases Archived February 6, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Billboard. February 2, 2012.

[42] Barker, George R. Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs Archived February 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Social Science Research Network. January 23, 2012.

[43] "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 20, 2018. Retrieved February 3, 2018.

[44] Bhattacharjee, Sudip., Gopal, Ram D., Lertwachara, Kaveepan. Marsden, James R. & Telang, Rahul. The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts Archived February 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Management Science 2007.

[45] Hammond. Robert G. "Profit Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry Archived May 23, 2012, at the Wayback Machine" May 2012. File sharing benefits mainstream albums such as pop music but not albums in niche genres such as indie music. ... Further, the finding that file sharing redistributes sales toward established/popular artists is inconsistent with claims made by proponents of file sharing that file-sharing democratizes music consumption."

[46] Peoples, Glenn. Business Matters: Pre-release File Sharing Helps Album Sales, Says a Study. So Why Not Replicate This Legally? Archived May 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Billboard. May 22, 2012.

[47] Global Internet Phenomena Report - Spring 2011 Archived January 13, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Sandvine Global Internet Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. May 12, 2011

[48] Secure Federal File Sharing Act : Report (to Accompany H.r. 4098) (Including Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). United States. March 11, 2010. Archived from the original on September 20, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.

[49] Larrier, Travis (March 4, 2013). "Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)". The Shadow League. Archived from the original on July 20, 2020. Retrieved July 20, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information}}
-'''File-sharing''' software is used to directly or indirectly transfer files from one computer to another over the [[Internet]], over a smaller [[Intranet]], or across simple networks following the [[peer-to-peer]] model.
+{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2017}}
+{{fsb}}
+'''File sharing''' is the practice of distributing or providing access to [[digital media]], such as computer programs, [[multimedia]] (audio, images and video), documents or [[E-book|electronic books]]. Common methods of [[Computer data storage|storage]], [[Data transmission|transmission]] and dispersion include [[removable media]], centralized servers on [[computer network]]s, Internet-based [[hyperlink]]ed documents, and the use of distributed [[peer-to-peer]] networking.
+File sharing technologies, such as [[BitTorrent]], are integral to modern [[Digital piracy|media piracy]], as well as the sharing of scientific data and other free content.
-== File-sharing Programs ==
-A variety of filesharing programs are available on several different networks.  Availability depends partly on [[operating system]], and different networks have different features (for example, multiple-source downloads, different sorts of search limiting, and so on).  Several major filesharing programs contain [[spyware]], which many users wish to avoid.
+==History==
-Nearly all filesharing programs request that you share files of your own, as users sharing files is the basis of the network.
+{{For timeline}}
+<!-- pre-1999 -->Files were first exchanged on [[removable media]]. Computers were able to access remote files using [[filesystem]] mounting, [[bulletin board system]]s (1978), [[Usenet]] (1979), and [[File Transfer Protocol|FTP]] servers (1970's). [[Internet Relay Chat]] (1988) and [[Hotline Communications|Hotline]] (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through [[online chat|chat]] and to exchange files. The [[mp3]] encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and substantially reduced the size of [[Audio file format|audio files]], grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, [[MP3.com]] and [[Audiogalaxy]] were established, the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] was unanimously passed, and the first [[Portable media player|mp3 player]] devices were launched.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Adner|first=Ron|date=2012-03-05|title=From Walkman to iPod: What Music Tech Teaches Us About Innovation|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/from-walkman-to-ipod-what-music-tech-teaches-us-about-innovation/253158/|access-date=2021-10-12|website=The Atlantic|language=en|archive-date=September 21, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921204412/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/from-walkman-to-ipod-what-music-tech-teaches-us-about-innovation/253158/|url-status=live}}</ref>
+In June 1999, [[Napster]] was released as an unstructured centralized peer-to-peer system,<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KeIENcC2BPwC&q=napster+first&pg=PA532 |title=Reliable distributed systems: technologies, Web services, and applications - Kenneth P. Birman - Google Books |via=[[Google Books]] |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170905151657/https://books.google.com/books?id=KeIENcC2BPwC&pg=PA532&lpg=PA532&dq=napster+first#PPA532,M1 |archive-date=September 5, 2017 |df=mdy-all |isbn=9780387215099 |last1=Elser |first1=Amy |date=March 25, 2005 |publisher=Springer }}</ref> requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In December 1999, Napster was sued by several recording companies and lost in ''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]''.<ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title=RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion | date=December 9, 1999 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130601112815/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html | archive-date=June 1, 2013 | df=mdy-all }}</ref> In the case of Napster, it has been ruled that an online service provider could not use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]] if they had control of the network with a server.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php |title=EFF: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law |publisher=W2.eff.org |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120115034129/http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php |archive-date=January 15, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
-== File sharing and copyright ==
+[[Gnutella]], [[eDonkey2000]], and [[Freenet]] were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. [[Gnutella]], released in March, was the first decentralized file-sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no [[Single point of failure|central point of failure]]. In July, [[Freenet]] was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the [[eDonkey2000]] client and server software was released.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}
-Anonymous, Internet file-sharing (such as Gnutella and Napster) grew in popularity with the proliferation of high speed Internet connections and the (relatively) small and high quality [[MP3]] audio format.  Although file sharing is a legal technology with legal uses, some people have used it to download copyrighted materials. This has led to counter-attacks against file-sharing in general from some copyright owners.
+In March 2001, [[Kazaa]] was released. Its [[FastTrack]] network was distributed, though, unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as [[Morpheus (software)|Morpheus]] off of the FastTrack network.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}} In October 2001, the [[MPAA]] and the [[RIAA]] filed a lawsuit against the developers of Kazaa, Morpheus and [[Grokster]]<ref>{{cite magazine | last=Woody | first=Todd | title=The Race to Kill Kazaa | date=February 1, 2003 | magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | url=https://www.wired.com/2003/02/kazaa/}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title=RIAA and MPAA sue Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaa | date=October 3, 2001 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/sue_morpheus.html | access-date=October 16, 2019 | archive-date=July 31, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731160654/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/sue_morpheus.html | url-status=live }}</ref> that would lead to the US Supreme Court's ''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.]]'' decision in 2005.
-Through 2001 and 2002, the entire file-sharing community has been in a state of flux, since record companies and [[RIAA]] try to shut down as much of this as possible. Even though they have forced [[Napster]] into cooperating against copyright violations, they are way behind, since the community has flourished and produced lots of different clients, though not as many different underlying protocols. The second generation of P2P protocols, such as [[Freenet]] are not as dependent as Napster is on a central server, making it much harder to shut down these systems through court actions. Another attempt (used by the maintainers of [[KaZaA]]) is to change the company's organization so that it is impossible or useless to attack it legally.
+Shortly after its loss in court, Napster was shut down to comply with a court order. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its growth.<ref>{{cite news | last=Menta | first=Richard | title=Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet | date=July 20, 2001 | publisher=MP3 Newswire | url=http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/topclones.html | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328161917/http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/topclones.html | archive-date=March 28, 2012 | df=mdy-all }}</ref> The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the [[LimeWire]] client and [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]] protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file-sharing program despite bundled [[malware]] and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue, and the [[Recording Industry Association of America]] (RIAA) filed a lawsuit that effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.
-== List of file-sharing utilities ==
-*[[FTP]] File Transfer Protocol
-*[[Kermit]]
-*Operating System File Sharing Protocols
-**[[Network File System]] (NFS)
-**[[Samba software|Samba]] or [[SMB]]
-**[[Appleshare]]
-*Operating System File Sharing Servers
-**[[Windows_2000|Windows 2000 Server]]
-**[[Linux]]
-**[[Novell]]
-**[[Mac OS Server]]
-*[[HTTP]]
-**Servers
-***[[Apache]] HTTP Server
-***[[IIS]] Microsoft Internet Information Services
-**User agents
-***Mozilla, IE, [[Konqueror]], etc.
-**User agents
-***[[Mozilla]]
-***[[CuteFTP]]
-*[[IRC]]
-*[[Hotline]]
-*OpenNap protocol
-**Directory servers
-***[[OpenNap]] Server
-**User agents
-***[[Napster]]
-***[[Gnapster]]
-***[[WinMX]]
-*[[Gnutella]]
-**[[Shareaza]]
-**[[BearShare]]
-**[[Gnucleus]]
-**[[Limewire]]
-**[[Morpheus]]
-**[[xolox]]
-*[[Freenet]] protocol
-**[[Espra]]
-*[[Audiogalaxy]]
-*[[iMesh]]
-*[[Direct connect file-sharing application|Direct Connect]]
-**[[Neo-Modus Direct Connect]]
-***DC++
-****BCDC++
-****CZDC++
-*[[FastTrack]] protocol
-**[[KaZaA]]
-**[[Grokster]]
-*[[OpenFT]] protocol
-**[[giFT]]
-*[[eDonkey]] protocol
-**[[eDonkey2000]]
-**[[eMule]]
-**[[mlDonkey]]
-**[[Overnet]]
-*[[SoulSeek]]
+[[File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg|thumb|Demonstrators protesting [[The Pirate Bay raid]] in 2006]]
-== Credit ==
-This article was partly based on public domain material from the [[infoAnarchy wiki]]. Update as needed.
+From 2002 through 2003, a number of [[BitTorrent (protocol)|BitTorrent]] services were established, including [[Suprnova.org]], [[isoHunt]], [[TorrentSpy]], and [[The Pirate Bay]]. In September 2003, the [[RIAA]] began filing lawsuits against users of P2P file sharing networks such as Kazaa.<ref>{{cite magazine | last=Dean | first=Katie | title=RIAA Legal Landslide Begins | date=September 8, 2003 | magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | url=https://www.wired.com/2003/09/riaa-legal-landslide-begins/ | access-date=November 1, 2019 | archive-date=March 8, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308181623/https://www.wired.com/2003/09/riaa-legal-landslide-begins/ | url-status=live }}</ref> As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). Also in 2003, the [[MPAA]] started to take action against BitTorrent sites, leading to the shutdown of Torrentse and Sharelive in July 2003.<ref>{{cite news | last=Röttgers | first=Janko | title=Bittorrent-Webseiten unter Druck | trans-title=Bittorrent websites under pressure | date=July 26, 2003 | publisher=heise online | url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bittorrent-Webseiten-unter-Druck-82795.html | language=de | access-date=October 16, 2019 | archive-date=October 16, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191016144549/https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bittorrent-Webseiten-unter-Druck-82795.html | url-status=live }}</ref> With the shutdown of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the [[Razorback2]] eDonkey server and temporarily took down [[The Pirate Bay]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Motion Picture Association |title=BELGIAN & SWISS AUTHORITIES BREAK RAZORBACK2: World's Largest P2P Facilitator Put Out of Illegal Business |url=http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_razer.pdf |website=Motion Picture Association |access-date=5 January 2024 |archive-date=April 15, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060415024031/http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_razer.pdf |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref>
+"The File Sharing Act was launched by Chairman Towns in 2009, this act prohibited the use of applications that allowed individuals to share federal information amongst one another. On the other hand, only specific file sharing applications were made available to federal computers" (the United States.Congress.House). In 2009, the [[Pirate Bay trial]] ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker. The decision was appealed, leading to a second guilty verdict in November 2010. In October 2010, Limewire was forced to shut down following a court order in ''[[Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC]]'' but the Gnutella network remains active through open source clients like [[FrostWire]] and [[gtk-gnutella]]. Furthermore, multi-protocol file-sharing software such as [[MLDonkey]] and [[Shareaza]] adapted to support all the major file-sharing protocols, so users no longer had to install and configure multiple file-sharing programs.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}
+On January 19, 2012, the [[United States Department of Justice]] shut down the popular domain of [[Megaupload]] (established 2005). The file sharing site has claimed to have over 50,000,000 people a day.<ref name="megaupload_wp">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/department-of-justice-site-hacked-after-megaupload-shutdown-anonymous-claims-credit/2012/01/20/gIQAl5MNEQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop |title=Department of Justice site hacked after Megaupload shutdown, Anonymous claims credit. Washington Post |work=Washingtonpost.com |access-date=January 30, 2012 |first=Steven |last=Mufson |date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120123165721/http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/department-of-justice-site-hacked-after-megaupload-shutdown-anonymous-claims-credit/2012/01/20/gIQAl5MNEQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop |archive-date=January 23, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>  [[Kim Dotcom]] (formerly Kim Schmitz) was arrested with three associates in New Zealand on January 20, 2012 and is awaiting extradition.<ref>{{cite news |last=Schneider |first=Joe |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/megaupload-s-dotcom-in-custody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request.html |title=Megaupload's Dotcom in Custody as New Zealand Awaits Extradition Request, Bloomberg |publisher=Bloomberg.com |date=January 24, 2012 |access-date=January 30, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127024809/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/megaupload-s-dotcom-in-custody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request.html |archive-date=January 27, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553 | title=Dotcom in custody ahead of bail decision | work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] | date=23 January 2012 | access-date=March 13, 2018 | author=Leask, Anna | archive-date=March 13, 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180313034427/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553 | url-status=live }}</ref>  The case involving the downfall of the world's largest and most popular file sharing site was not well received, with hacker group [[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]] bringing down several sites associated with the take-down.<ref name="megaupload_wp" />  In the following days, other file sharing sites began to cease services; [[FileSonic]] blocked public downloads on January 22,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Musil |first1=Steven |title=FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests |url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/filesonic-disables-file-sharing-in-wake-of-megaupload-arrests/ |website=CNET |access-date=5 January 2024}}</ref> with [[FileServe|Fileserve]] following suit on January 23.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Lanxon |first1=Nate |title=Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests |url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/filesonic-file-sharing-offline |magazine=Wired |publisher=Condé Nast Britain |access-date=5 January 2024}}</ref>
+In 2021 a [[European Citizens' Initiative]] "Freedom to Share" started collecting signatures in order to get the [[European Commission]] to discuss (and eventually make rules) on this subject, which is controversial.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=2021-02-22|title="Freedom to Share" Launches EU Citizens' Initiative to Legalize File-Sharing|newspaper=TorrentFreak|url=https://torrentfreak.com/freedom-to-share-launches-eu-citizens-initiative-to-legalize-filesharing-201217/|author=Ernesto Van der Sar|date=2020-12-17|archive-date=February 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218090937/https://torrentfreak.com/freedom-to-share-launches-eu-citizens-initiative-to-legalize-filesharing-201217/|url-status=live}}</ref>
+=== Techniques used for video sharing ===
+From the early 2000s until the mid 2010s, online video streaming was usually based on the [[Adobe Flash Player]]. After more and more vulnerabilities in Adobe's flash became known, [[YouTube]] switched to HTML5 based video playback in January 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default|title=YouTube drops Flash for HTML5 video as default|last=McCormick|first=Rich|date=2015-01-27|website=The Verge|language=en|access-date=2020-02-05|archive-date=April 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402075002/https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default|url-status=live}}</ref>
+== Types ==
+=== Peer-to-peer file sharing ===
+[[Peer-to-peer file sharing]] is based on the [[peer-to-peer]] (P2P) application architecture. [[Shared resource|Shared files]] on the computers of other [[User (computing)|users]] are indexed on directory servers. P2P technology was used by popular services like [[Napster]] and [[LimeWire]]. The most popular protocol for P2P sharing is [[BitTorrent]].
+=== File sync and sharing services ===
+[[File:Shareaza 2.5.2.0 Screenshot English.jpg|thumb|Screenshot of an open-source file-sharing software [[Shareaza]]]]
+[[Cloud computing|Cloud-based]] [[file synchronization|file syncing and sharing]] services implement automated file transfers by updating files from a dedicated sharing directory on each user's networked devices. Files placed in this folder also are typically accessible through a website and mobile app and can be easily shared with other users for viewing or collaboration. Such services have become popular via consumer-oriented [[file hosting service]]s such as [[Dropbox (service)|Dropbox]] and [[Google Drive]]. With the rising need of sharing big files online easily, new [[open access]] sharing platforms have appeared, adding even more services to their core business (cloud storage, multi-device synchronization,  online collaboration), such as [[ShareFile]], [[Tresorit]], [[WeTransfer]], or [[Hightail]].
+[[rsync]] is a more traditional program released in 1996 which synchronizes files on a direct machine-to-machine basis.
+[[Data synchronization]] in general can use other approaches to share files, such as [[distributed filesystem|distributed file system]]s, [[version control]], or [[Web mirror|mirrors]].
+== Academic file sharing ==
+In addition to file sharing for the purposes of entertainment, academic file sharing has become a topic of increasing concern,<ref name=":0">{{cite book| title=Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind| author=Rogerson, A.M.| publisher=Semantic Scholar| date=2014| s2cid=106581372}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite book| title=Handbook of Academic Integrity| author1=Rogerson, A.M.| author2=Basanta, G.| chapter=Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Academic Integrity in the Internet Age| chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55| publisher=Springer Nature| pages=273–285| date=5 February 2016| access-date=13 December 2023| doi=10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55| isbn=978-981-287-098-8}}</ref><ref name=AID_1>{{cite journal| title=Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary| author=Eaton, S.E.| url=https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/3817c241-3d4b-433e-b424-e955e81c0b48| journal=International Studies in Educational Administration| publisher=Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management| volume=48| issue=1| pages=80–85| date=12 July 2020| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref> as it is deemed to be a violation of [[academic integrity]] at many schools.<ref name=":0"/><ref name=":1"/><ref name=ASI_1>{{cite web| title=Arts & Sciences investigates Physics 192 academic integrity breach| author=Butler, J.| url=https://www.studlife.com/news/2020/04/15/arts-sciences-investigates-physics-192-academic-integrity-breach| publisher=Washington University Student Media, Inc.| date=15 April 2020| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref> Academic file sharing by companies such as [[Chegg]] and [[Course Hero]] has become a point of particular controversy in recent years.<ref name=LT_1>{{cite web| title=Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?| author=McKenzie, L.| url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/14/professors-warned-about-popular-learning-tool-used-students-cheat| publisher=Inside Higher Ed| date=13 May 2018| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref> This has led some institutions to provide explicit guidance to students and faculty regarding academic integrity expectations relating to academic file sharing.<ref name=NSS_1>{{cite web| title=Information for Faculty: Note-sharing sites| url=https://sheridancollege.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=34999338| publisher=Sheridan College| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref><ref name=CSG_1>{{cite web| title=Copyright for Students| url=https://sheridancollege.libguides.com/copyright_students/home| publisher=Sheridan College| date=30 July 2023| access-date=13 December 2023}}</ref>
+==Public opinion of file sharing==
+In 2004, there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html |title=Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing|last = Delgado |first = Ray |work=Stanford Report |publisher=[[Stanford University]] |date=March 17, 2004 |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625030926/http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html |archive-date=June 25, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> According to a [[CBS News]] poll in 2009, 58% of [[United States|Americans]] who follow the file-sharing issue, considered it acceptable "if a person owns the music CD and shares it with a limited number of friends and acquaintances"; with 18- to 29-year-olds, this percentage reached as much as 70%.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-young-say-file-sharing-ok/ |title=Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK |work=[[CBS News]] |date=February 11, 2009 |access-date=January 20, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111130162846/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml |archive-date=November 30, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
+In his survey of file-sharing culture, Caraway (2012) noted that 74.4% of participants believed musicians should accept file sharing as a means for promotion and distribution.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1216/720|title = Survey of File-Sharing Culture|date = 2012|access-date = November 25, 2015|website = [[International Journal of Communication]]|publisher = [[USC Annenberg Press]], [[Creative Commons license]] (by-nc-nd)|last = Caraway|first = Brett Robert |url-status = live|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090451/http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1216/720|archive-date = March 4, 2016|df = mdy-all}}</ref> This file-sharing culture was termed as [[cyber socialism]], whose legalisation was not the expected [[Cyber-utopianism|cyber-utopia]].{{Clarify|reason=expected utopia? i've tried making sense of it, but I'm not 100% please assess and reword, if necessary.|date=August 2022}}.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Filby |first1=Michael |title=Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulations for an Open Internet |journal=Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology |date=2011 |volume=6 |pages=207 |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fjcolate6&div=24&id=&page= |access-date=28 December 2021 |archive-date=January 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117180023/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fjcolate6&div=24&id=&page= |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=cybers>{{cite journal |last1=Filby |first1=Michael |title=Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons |journal=International Journal of Private Law |date=1 January 2008 |volume=1 |issue=1–2 |pages=94–109 |doi=10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435 |url=https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435 |access-date=28 December 2021 |issn=1753-6235 |archive-date=January 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117180020/https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435 |url-status=live }}</ref>
+==Economic impact==
+According to David Glenn, writing in ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'', "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file-sharing hurts sales".<ref name="HigherEdu">{{cite news |last=Glenn |first=David |date=July 17, 2008 |title=Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/dispute-over-the-economics-of-file-sharing-intensifies-989/ |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education |location=Washington, D. C. |access-date=November 5, 2020 |archive-date=April 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415085131/https://www.chronicle.com/article/dispute-over-the-economics-of-file-sharing-intensifies-989/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A literature review by Professor Peter Tschmuck found 22 [[independent study|independent studies]] on the effects of music file sharing. "Of these 22 studies, 14 – roughly two-thirds – conclude that unauthorized downloads have a 'negative or even highly negative impact' on recorded music sales. Three of the studies found no significant impact while the remaining five found a positive impact."<ref>Hart, Terry. [http://www.copyhype.com/2012/02/more-evidence-for-copyright-protection/ More Evidence for Copyright Protection] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205093806/http://www.copyhype.com/2012/02/more-evidence-for-copyright-protection/ |date=February 5, 2012 }}, copyhype.com, February 1, 2012. "The literature review looked at a 23rd study but did not classify it here since the author presented a mixed conclusion: the overall effect of unauthorized downloads is insignificant, but for unknown artists, there is a 'strongly negative' effect on recorded music sales."</ref><ref>AJ Sokolov, Daniel . [http://www.heise.de/ct/meldung/Wissenschaftler-Studien-ueber-Tauschboersen-unbrauchbar-1020532.html Wissenschaftler: Studien über Tauschbörsen unbrauchbar] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130603034104/http://www.heise.de/ct/meldung/Wissenschaftler-Studien-ueber-Tauschboersen-unbrauchbar-1020532.html |date=June 3, 2013 }}, ''[[c't]]'' magazine, June 11, 2010.</ref>
+A study by economists [[Felix Oberholzer-Gee]] and Koleman Strumpf in 2004 concluded that music file sharing's effect on sales was "statistically indistinguishable from zero".<ref name="levine">Levine, Robert. ''Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back'', Bodley Head,  February 2011, {{ISBN|1847921485}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf|title=The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis|last=Oberholzer|first=Felix|author2=Koleman Strumpf|access-date=June 13, 2008|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080613031108/http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf|archive-date=June 13, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref> This research was disputed by other economists, most notably Stan Liebowitz, who said Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had made multiple assumptions about the music industry "that are just not correct."<ref name="levine" /><ref name=HRI_1>{{cite journal| title=How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?| last=Liebowitz|first=Stan J.| url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228172429| journal=Intellectual Property: Copyright Law eJournal| publisher=ResearchGate GmbH| date=23 September 2007| access-date=13 December 2023| doi=10.2139/ssrn.1014399| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100827225353/http://musicbusinessresearch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/paper-stan-j-liebowitz1.pdf| archive-date=August 27, 2010}}</ref> In June 2010, ''Billboard'' reported that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had "changed their minds", now finding "no more than 20% of the recent decline in sales is due to sharing".<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i82a006de3290b1a63323f3e4ee910ca9 Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101209002810/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i82a006de3290b1a63323f3e4ee910ca9 |date=December 9, 2010 }} ''Billboard''. June 22, 2010.</ref> However, citing [[Nielsen SoundScan]] as their source, the co-authors maintained that illegal downloading had not deterred people from being original. "In many creative industries, monetary incentives play a reduced role in motivating authors to remain creative. Data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file-sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. Since the advent of file sharing, the production of music, books, and movies has increased sharply."<ref>Oberholzer & Strumpf. "File Sharing and Copyright" ''NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy'', Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. "Artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form – many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars – suggesting a reduction in monetary incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic production."</ref> Glenn Peoples of ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' disputed the underlying data, saying "SoundScan's number for new releases in any given year represents new commercial titles, not necessarily new creative works."<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ic193b6eacf48409b52f1ab027d2d2b6c Analysis: Are Musicians Losing the Incentive to Create?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101103010017/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ic193b6eacf48409b52f1ab027d2d2b6c |date=November 3, 2010 }} ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]''. July 26, 2010.</ref> The RIAA likewise responded that "new releases" and "new creative works" are two separate things. "[T]his figure includes re-releases, new compilations of existing songs, and new digital-only versions of catalog albums. SoundScan has also steadily increased the number of retailers (especially non-traditional retailers) in their sample over the years, better capturing the number of new releases brought to market. What Oberholzer and Strumpf found was better ability to track new album releases, not greater incentive to create them."<ref>Friedlander, Joshua P. & Lamy, Jonathan. [http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/view_35.pdf Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121074926/http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/view_35.pdf |date=January 21, 2012 }} ifpi.org, July 19, 2010.</ref>
+A 2006 study prepared by Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz, published by [[Industry Canada]], was "unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada".<ref>[http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080914010619/http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html |date=September 14, 2008 }}, Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz</ref> The results of this survey were similarly criticized by academics and a subsequent revaluation of the same data by George R. Barker of the [[Australian National University]] reached the opposite conclusion.<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-a-new-look-at-an-old-survey-1006083952.story A New Look at an Old Survey Finds P2P Hurts Music Purchases] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206050415/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-a-new-look-at-an-old-survey-1006083952.story |date=February 6, 2012 }}, ''Billboard''. February 2, 2012.</ref> "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." Barker thus concludes; "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."<ref>Barker, George R. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1990153 Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205104922/https://ssrn.com/abstract=1990153 |date=February 5, 2012 }} [[Social Science Research Network]]. January 23, 2012.</ref>
+According to the 2017 paper "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" by the [[European Commission]], illegal usage increases game sales, stating "The overall conclusion is that for games, illegal online transactions induce more legal transactions."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf|title=Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU|access-date=February 3, 2018|archive-date=January 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180120001830/https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
+===Market dominance===
+A paper in the journal ''[[Operations Research: A Journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences|Management Science]]'' found that file-sharing decreased the chance of survival for low ranked albums on music charts and increased exposure to albums that were ranked high on the music charts, allowing popular and well-known artists to remain on the music charts more often. This hurt new and less-known artists while promoting the work of already popular artists and celebrities.<ref>Bhattacharjee, Sudip., Gopal, Ram D., Lertwachara, Kaveepan. Marsden, James R. & Telang, Rahul. [http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/53/9/1359.full.pdf+html The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214152135/http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/53/9/1359.full.pdf+html |date=February 14, 2012 }} ''Management Science'' 2007.</ref>
+A more recent study that examined pre-release file-sharing of music albums, using BitTorrent software, also discovered positive impacts for "established and popular artists but not newer and smaller artists." According to Robert G. Hammond of [[North Carolina State University]], an album that leaked one month early would see a modest increase in sales. "This increase in sales is small relative to other factors that have been found to affect album sales."
+<blockquote>"File-sharing proponents commonly argue that file-sharing democratizes music consumption by 'levelling the playing field' for new/small artists relative to established/popular artists, by allowing artists to have their work heard by a wider audience, lessening the advantage held by established/popular artists in terms of promotional and other support. My results suggest that the opposite is happening, which is consistent with evidence on file-sharing behaviour."<ref>Hammond. Robert G. "[http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/Hammond_File_Sharing_Leak.pdf Profit Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120523032458/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/Hammond_File_Sharing_Leak.pdf |date=May 23, 2012 }}" May 2012. File sharing benefits mainstream albums such as pop music but not albums in niche genres such as indie music. ... Further, the finding that file sharing redistributes sales toward established/popular artists is inconsistent with claims made by proponents of file sharing that file-sharing democratizes music consumption."</ref></blockquote>
+''Billboard'' cautioned that this research looked only at the pre-release period and not continuous file sharing following a release date. "The problem in believing [[Copyright infringement#"Piracy"|piracy]] helps sales is deciding where to draw the line between legal and illegal ... Implicit in the study is the fact that both buyers and sellers are required in order for pre-release file sharing to have a positive impact on album sales. Without iTunes, Amazon, and Best Buy, file-sharers would be just file sharers rather than purchasers. If you carry out the 'file-sharing should be legal' argument to its logical conclusion, today's retailers will be tomorrow's file-sharing services that integrate with their respective [[cloud storage service]]s."<ref>Peoples, Glenn. [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/business-matters-pre-release-file-sharing-1007125352.story Business Matters: Pre-release File Sharing Helps Album Sales, Says a Study. So Why Not Replicate This Legally?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525073225/http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/business-matters-pre-release-file-sharing-1007125352.story |date=May 25, 2012 }} ''Billboard''. May 22, 2012.</ref>
+===Availability===
+Many argue that file-sharing has forced the owners of entertainment content to make it more widely available legally through fees or advertising on-demand on the internet. In a 2011 report by [[Sandvine]] showed that [[Netflix]] traffic had come to surpass that of [[BitTorrent]].<ref>[https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/05/SandvineGlobalInternetSpringReport2011.pdf Global Internet Phenomena Report - Spring 2011] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113020428/http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2011/05/SandvineGlobalInternetSpringReport2011.pdf |date=January 13, 2012 }} Sandvine Global Internet Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. May 12, 2011</ref>
+==Copyright issues==
+{{main|Legal aspects of file sharing}}
+File sharing raises copyright issues and has led to many lawsuits. In the [[United States]], some of these lawsuits have even reached the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]. For example, in ''[[MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.|MGM v. Grokster]]'', the Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held liable if their software is marketed as a tool for copyright infringement.
+On the other hand, not all file sharing is illegal. Content in the [[public domain]] can be freely shared. Even works covered by [[copyright]] can be shared under certain circumstances. For example, some artists, publishers, and [[record label]]s grant the public a license for unlimited distribution of certain works, sometimes with conditions, and they advocate [[free content]] and file sharing as a promotional tool.<ref>{{cite book|title=Secure Federal File Sharing Act : Report (to Accompany H.r. 4098) (Including Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office).|date=March 11, 2010|publisher=United States.|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015085442476;view=1up;seq=1|access-date=February 15, 2018|archive-date=September 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920183315/https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015085442476;view=1up;seq=1|url-status=live}}</ref>
+==See also==
+{{Portal|Internet}}
+* [[Comparison of file sharing applications]]
+* [[File hosting service]]
+* [[:Category:File sharing news sites|File sharing news sites]]
+* [[Graduated response]]
+* [[Love for Sale (Bilal album)|''Love for Sale'' (Bilal album)]], an unreleased but infamously pirated album by [[Bilal (American singer)|Bilal]]<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Larrier|first=Travis|date=March 4, 2013|url=https://theshadowleague.com/bilal-is-the-future-and-the-present-and-the-past/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c2ffa10bef1f424fb252543ee09315d038103bd2-1595252623-0-AQaQvFZEknRWDZtLz_-KpHpRYNhNqscHTfCHp6Tr8hduX5gs6uyAaQfef1hB3snODkYFwgSlXH9pQZS_OgmovWZg1dxWOfdv6KYaotwCiVhAfOA1NooyRIZBbQ7AuwrnezemOt0aOvC5JqXaUG-ixf6x0eEfcLz6_aB4mZaVUtX5eXwwFSBkfNJmBxG6In4wWiDOMJXhVyzdm_YyrRyUJNYEEsTZ9jXVjo4xZCyDtxOzub5oRn9F3uGLl4IYob_-oI06lSh6NUnbSSYC8SejeXAaDrJ45SThoPXWHhy2_qU8bC0XPFFKmGzELGJ4Di6R6VT6lqtMNIwnKTLQL7_EXDk|title=Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)|magazine=The Shadow League|access-date=July 20, 2020|archive-date=July 20, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720152846/https://theshadowleague.com/bilal-is-the-future-and-the-present-and-the-past/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c2ffa10bef1f424fb252543ee09315d038103bd2-1595252623-0-AQaQvFZEknRWDZtLz_-KpHpRYNhNqscHTfCHp6Tr8hduX5gs6uyAaQfef1hB3snODkYFwgSlXH9pQZS_OgmovWZg1dxWOfdv6KYaotwCiVhAfOA1NooyRIZBbQ7AuwrnezemOt0aOvC5JqXaUG-ixf6x0eEfcLz6_aB4mZaVUtX5eXwwFSBkfNJmBxG6In4wWiDOMJXhVyzdm_YyrRyUJNYEEsTZ9jXVjo4xZCyDtxOzub5oRn9F3uGLl4IYob_-oI06lSh6NUnbSSYC8SejeXAaDrJ45SThoPXWHhy2_qU8bC0XPFFKmGzELGJ4Di6R6VT6lqtMNIwnKTLQL7_EXDk|url-status=live}}</ref>
+* [[Missionary Church of Kopimism]]
+* [[Open Music Model]]
+* [[Publius (publishing system)]]
+* [[Torrent poisoning]]
+* [[Trade group efforts against file sharing]]
+* [[Warez]]
+==References==
+{{Reflist}}
+==Further reading==
+*Levine, Robert. ''Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back'', Bodley Head, February 2011.
+* [[Shuman Ghosemajumder|Ghosemajumder, Shuman]]. ''[http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/8438 Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models]''. [[MIT Sloan School of Management]], 2002
+* Silverthorne, Sean. ''[http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630024153/http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation |date=June 30, 2006 }}''. [[Harvard Business School|Harvard Business School Working Knowledge]], 2004.
+* Ralf Steinmetz, Klaus Wehrle (Eds). [https://web.archive.org/web/20051103051636/http://www.peer-to-peer.info/ Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications]. {{ISBN|3-540-29192-X}}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3485, September 2005
+* Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. [http://www.spinellis.gr/pubs/jrnl/2004-ACMCS-p2p/html/AS04.html A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies]. ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–371, December 2004. {{doi|10.1145/1041680.1041681}}.
+* Stefan Saroiu, P. Krishna Gummadi, and Steven D. Gribble. [http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~almeroth/classes/F02.276/papers/p2p-measure.pdf A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems]. Technical Report # UW-CSE-01-06-02. Department of Computer Science & Engineering. The University of Washington. Seattle, WA, USA.
+<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
+<!--| DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF |-->
+<!--| LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, |-->
+<!--| but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link  |-->
+<!--| to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|-->
+<!--| which is already linked using the {{dmoz}} template below.              |-->
+<!--|                                                                         |-->
+<!--|           Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED.            |-->
+<!--|  See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details    |-->
+<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->
+==External links==
+*{{Commonscatinline|File sharing}}
+{{File sharing}}
+{{Computer files}}
+{{Software distribution}}
+{{Authority control}}
+{{DEFAULTSORT:File sharing}}
+[[Category:File sharing| ]]
+[[Category:Intellectual property law]]

v t e Computer files
Types	Binary file / text file Data file File format List of file formats File signatures Magic number Open file formats Proprietary file formats Metafile Sidecar file Sparse file Swap file System file Temporary file Zero-byte file
Properties	Filename 8.3 filename Long filename Filename mangling Filename extension List of filename extensions File attribute Extended file attributes File size Hidden file / Hidden directory
Organisation	Directory/folder NTFS links Temporary folder Directory structure File system Filesystem Hierarchy Standard Grid file system Semantic file system Path
Operations	Open Close Read Write
Linking	File descriptor Hard link Shortcut Alias Shadow Symbolic link
Management	Backup File comparison File copying Data compression File manager Comparison of file managers File system fragmentation File-system permissions File transfer File sharing File synchronization File verification

v t e Software distribution
Licenses	Beerware Floating licensing Free and open-source Free Open source Freely redistributable License-free Proprietary Public domain Source-available
Compensation models	Adware Commercial software Retail software Crippleware Crowdfunding Freemium Freeware Pay what you want Careware Donationware Open-core model Postcardware Shareware Nagware Trialware
Delivery methods	Digital distribution File sharing On-premises Pre-installed Product bundling Retail software Sneakernet Software as a service
Deceptive and/or illicit	Unwanted software bundling Malware Infostealer Ransomware Spyware Trojan horse Worm Scareware Shovelware
Software release life cycle	Abandonware End-of-life Long-term support Software maintenance Software maintainer Software publisher Vaporware list
Copy protection	Digital rights management Software protection dongle License manager Product activation Product key Software copyright Software license server Software patent Torrent poisoning