Talk:File sharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

File sharing[edit]

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)

"ethics of filesharing" link[edit]

I suggest that the links and redirecting from "ethics of filesharing" to this article, which is about the legality of the issue, should be removed. Ethics is mentioned nowhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the legality of file sharing, it's about file sharing, which as a subject has several aspects, including history, legality, and ethics. There is, as far as I know, no major academic work done on the subject of file sharing ethics. That article was pretty much entirely OR, except for the legal histories, which were mostly redundant with this article. The ethics section is trivial/nonexistent here, but some property rights are covered. We're not going to delete that article, to preserve its history, and there's no better place to redirect it to. The redirect is harmless.   M   00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
When I wrote that I didn't realize I was on the general file sharing article. I thought I had been redirected to the "legal issues of file sharing" article. In any case, I understand the need to preserve the history of the ethics article, but it is too bad there's no better way to preserve it than directing it to an article that doesn't talk about it at all...
Just add some good, sourced anti-copyright and property rights info to the article, that'll fix things :)   M   08:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

File sharing in canada should be removed...[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Against which policy? Mindmatrix 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

New external link[edit]

Worldwide File Sharing Website Worldwide File Sharing Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorson (talkcontribs) 14:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I propose to add File Sharing Internet clients at the Open Directory Project to the list of external links. As far as I can tell, it is at least as appropriate as the link already there (file storage web applications), and probably more so. I was going to be bold and add it myself, but there is a warning about inappropriate links, and apparently I should bring it up here first.  ;-) leevclarke (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


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)

File sharing advocates[edit]

I have removed all unsourced 'they said' type comments in this section - there are plenty of poorly sourced cited claims of lost revenue and criticism here on this article as it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtemisChook (talkcontribs) 05:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because not everything you removed was unsourced and the other parts have recent tags requesting sources. I suggest you try to find sources instead of removing text. This shouldn't be too hard. Just upon reading those paragraphs, I'm pretty sure you can use Steal This Film as source. I've only seen the second one myself. Another one would be Good Copy Bad Copy.

The unsourced weasel comments were tagged back at the beginning of Feburary 2010 by another editor and there has been no response. Most of this section is poorly written.

--ArtemisChook (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The paragraphs in question are not really questionable. I've heard all the arguments before. Therefor, in combination with the recent tagging, the text is just waiting to be referenced but this doesn't seem urgent. Hence the tagged invitation to add a reference to warn the reader that it could be questionable. Other articles with missing references often get a {{Refimprove|date=}}-tag at the top of the page/section. I could do add the references after a bit of searching, but for now there are other articles I want to dedicate my attention to (with these tags for years and no other so called "experts" on the topic -> thus I end up correcting mistakes and adding info so the article is more nuanced).
I started to edit Wikipedia myself not so long ago and was attracted by these tags, because the info that was available in the article could not be found elsewhere on the Internet in the same format. Therefor I simply started by adding references to the article so it wouldn't get deleted. Later on I started adding information based on those sources I found and thus expanding articles. While deletionists serve their purpose, I found your deletion a contraproductive move. Starting from sources to add content is the way to go. Try to source it, and while your at it, remove those weasel words and see if other sources refute it + reason why, so it becomes more nuanced. There are already enough people to remove content ;) For actual work however, each new person contributing is very appreciated! --Ondertitel (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

respectfully, I also have read all these arguments before and they ARE questionable and yes wiki articles do have tags to ask for citations to support claims but not one after the other like this section has with multiple weasel comments all in a row with nothing to substantiate the content!

--ArtemisChook (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

File Sharing prior to Internet Popularity and Shareware[edit]

It has been commented that shareware still exists, well BBS's still exist in one form or another but there is a distinction between formats of file sharing. Although shareware still exists in some form we need to focus on discussing history and the majority of file sharing at the time we are trying to reference. I vast majority of file sharing uses p2p methods. But in the early 90's a vast majority of the file sharing that did occur was between BBS's. FIDO, and WWIVnet being the two major networks of file sharers. Please discuss this point in history don't just attempt to remove it from the page as this form of computer networking is just as valid as the Internet and not deserves to be recorded for historical posterity. Deathmolor (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are several problems with your good faith edit and there is nothing "inappropriate" about an undo. OTOH, as I understand it, it is inappropriate to repost without discussion.
1. I mentioned the major problem WP:OR im my undo.
2. There are currently over 700 web shareware sites. They have not disappeared. These are NOT p2p sites.
3. Do you have a reference that the "vast majority of file sharing uses p2p methods?" This may be true of illegal file sharing.
4. In the 90s, I would guess the majority of file-sharing was on Compuserve, AOL, and newsgroups as well as the web.
5. Doom was released on newsgroups, a part of the Internet.

Objective3000 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

shareware is only one aspect of bbs's all sorts of file sharing happened either way this is all file sharing. File sharing is not confined to just p2p either way bbs's were p2p. I think your not looking deeply into this and have a perspective with no in site and the undo's are of no value informational wise to wiki. I think we are at an impasse you refuse to contribute and I refuse to allow you to remove other peoples contributions. You will need to settle this as your angle requires no effort where mine is from a stand point of considerable knowledge and effort. Deathmolor (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Your comment that I "refuse to contribute" is a violation of WP:CIV. Please be civil and assume good faith.
2. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "perspective with no in site" and "File sharing is not confined to just p2p either way bbs's were p2p."
3. Your statement that you have "considerable knowledge" is irrelevant. WP edits are based on reliable references, not personal knowledge. WP:OR. Just as irrelevant is that I started in the IT communications field 42 years ago, and was an early BBS moderator during the ARPANET days. I don't use that as a basis for editing, because it isn't a basis.
4. There is no consensus at this point. Please stop posting your edit until there is a consensus.Objective3000 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop posting things in point form. You have yet to make a point which is not instantly devolved by even a minor examination of the facts, I think defaulting to remove of a contribution of facts in the matter is a form of vandalism i am sure you will at this point throw around some WP's to support your side but your doing nothing but war editing which I find happens a lot in the wiki population and yes i was there too 40 years ago so lets just be civil and could you actually make a point which is not instantly dissolved by the facts. If you would like to make an edit to my contribution by all means but removal is inappropriate the way i see it. Please stop removing until a consensus is made. Keep in mind the burden of proof is on you now since i have used references within wiki that have many references in them. Much of that section has also been written by me and revised by others but I intend to followup with any particular recommendations you have besides a undo. Deathmolor (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Point 1. Irrelevant "im my undo" i will require english translation to that to answer it. Major problem with the Undo is obvious. You are removing a contribution with little to no valid reason. this is not vandalism and is a good faith contribution. If you want me to read [WP:OR]] and use the lingo i will but i am hoping you will use your mind and infer from what i have said. All the other points you made only reference my discussion not the issues with the article. If you have issues with the article then please post your issues with the article and don't use point form, use proper sentence structure. I refuse to have you take less effort to describe your point of view. You are taking the easy way out of editing. I would like you conjugate your opinion of the edit i made to the article and what your reasons are to undo the whole thing and not edit it to comply by your version of the facts. Deathmolor (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, now you are trying to add refs. That’s progress. But, you are not supposed to add text back to the article until consensus has been reached. A few points:
1. I do not see where the ref on the ‘Net makes your point. The Internet was certainly as available as BBSs in the 90s and in fact in far wider use in homes.
2. I’m afraid the ref doesn’t make WP:RS. It’s a chatty, blog entry with no refs.
3. The two discussions on sysops have problems with both WP:OR and WP:V. I don’t understand your reluctance to follow these links and read the descriptions. Doom was released on UseNet, a part of the Internet. The government and universities paid for the telecommunications at that time, not sysops.
4. As I said, there are still over 700 Shareware sites. I don’t see where your ref says Shareware has largely disappeared.
I am not engaging in vandalism as you accuse and I do not understand your demand that I not logically separate my points. Please respond to my points instead of attacking me and wait for a consensus before reposting.Objective3000 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have requested a third opinion.Objective3000 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your points which you continue to do in point form have no barring on the article whatsoever. From my perspective you are not to remove the contribution until their is a consensus. Why must it always be the person putting forward the least effort who decides to which point there is a stay until consensus. I say it stays until you have a valid reason for removal. You are not reading the articles referenced and using points which are not contained within the text. You really are not reading them or taking whatever small amount of text you can to support the removal and not focusing. further more no progress would be made if i did not continue to remove your undo. How would you even know there are new references if it were not for that? i think you are blatantly being unreasonable and progress can be made in the article if we continue to contribute to the facts present. You just continue to remove and not contribute. How about doing some research to refute or support, do something you so far are doing nothing and 700 shareware sites is not an argument, that says nothing. There are 10,000 bbs's and 20,000 ants within 100 foot radius. No point is being made. As for Dooms distribution Usenet was not available to general population if you read the first reference it goes into detail that the Internet was not available to the general public. Furthermore in the reference regarding the history shareware by the person who made shareware that it attributes the popularity of shareware to a growing Sysop movement of local BBS operators. Right now you are just trying to support your undo with no regard to trying to preserve the facts for posterity within WIKI as a whole. Really read the references take the time to do your research as I have. I cannot support your request to stay the submission until consensus as you are the only editor involved and are not supporting your stance whatsoever. There is no basis to seek consensus other then to delay the submission. Deathmolor (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course since your trying to support an invalid point that shareware is still alive, the organization that created it changed it name, One of the previous articles posted as reference covered the history of shareware and if you took the time to read it fully you would have seen the distribution model has ended as a viable model. The last article i posted which has quotes from every single major player in the shareware movement's past and basically out and saying it is over will likely not convince you either. I will not pollute the article any further to service your very ridged execution of wiki rules. You are asking for far more strict proof and consensus then 90% of the articles in wiki but i am willing to oblige over and over again with so many facts it ruins the readability of the article if you wish but I would hope sanity will prevail and you will drop this rather obvious power struggle. I will summarize the last article for you since you have trouble with that. It comes down to the fact the name of the Association has changed because shareware as it was known is gone. The internet is an exercise in shareware already and trial software is available from everyone now. The concept as grown to become all encompassing and thus no longer exists in its original form.
"The Shareware Industry Conference changed its name to the Software Industry Conference in 2007. Twenty plus years ago, when many (most?) PC users were still hackers, the term “Shareware” had wide spread recognition. Although, even then, there was some confusion between shareware, freeware, crippleware etc. Nowadays, the term is nebulous at best, and very misleading. It’s mainly used to describe “everything one can download from the Internet” (as an aside, a very useful experiment would be to ask 100 teenagers and 100 business people what they think of when they hear the world shareware)." - Paris Karahalios, SIAF co-founder, Software Industry Conference board member and co-founder of Trius Inc. Although you can profess that the distribution model still exists in various forms on the Internet the reality is those who framed the term, coined it and marketed the model have decided to abandon the term. Deathmolor (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Attacking me has no purpose. You made an edit that I believe violated two of the three pillars stated at the top of this page. No original research and verifiability. I removed the edit until consensus can be reached. Seriously, what is the hurry? Simply reach consensus on the text here, and THEN make the edit. You can post proposed text on this page and we can work with it.
At WP, we assume good faith. Saying that I am vandalizing, refusing to read refs, refuse to put in effort, refuse to contribute, am doing nothing, have no insight, have no regard for facts, etc., do not contribute to resolution. I also wish that you would take the time to read WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CIV. I don’t understand your stated reluctance to read WP guidelines. They are here to help us with disputes such as this. They really are brilliantly written.
Perhaps if you could explain what point you are attempting to add, we can come to some agreement. But, for now, all I see is unsubstantiated claims that the Internet was not in common use in the 90s (it was used more than non-Internet BBSs), Doom was not released on the Internet (it was released on USENET, which is a part of the Internet) and that Shareware is gone. I have asked for a third opinion in the hopes this will help us. I could have escalated, but chose this course as you appear unfamiliar with Wiki rules. And hey, maybe I don’t understand them as completely as I think. Please refrain from reposting the text until there is consensus.Objective3000 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest waiting for the Third Opinion request.Objective3000 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No insult is intended but I am observing a pattern. Since there is now supporting references I see no need to further delay the article since the primary reason for the removal in your own words is the lack of references It would seem a consensus has been met. I provided references and satisfied your argument now you wish to carry over the original objection to include the references. This would seem personal in motivation. Deathmolor (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Please look up the meaning of the word consensus. One editor cannot reach consensus. And please stop personal atacks. You are in violation of WP:CIV. There is NO consensus. The statements in the edit are NOT supported by the refs as I have pointed out. You still have not addressed the issues.15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You still have yet to support your argument and I find now that the constant reference to a personal attack is indeed a personal attack. We are at an impass you are doing the very thing you accuse me of. I am not attacking you but you are now professing that I am as some form of attack. You are in violation of WP:CIV, you also did not properly sign your statement this time Deathmolor (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
YES, we are at an impasse. By definition, that means there is NO consensus. That is why I asked for a third opinion. Your dates are incorrect. Shareware has not disappeared. Doom was released on USENET, part of the Internet, not a BBS. Your refs do not support your statements. You have not responded to any of these. You just keep adding disputed text without consensus.Objective3000 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
My references are those of the Shareware Industry Conference in their own words. There is no better references in this field. Absolutely none, so your objection is misplaced and not objective as your name implies. Doom was released into Shareware this does not omit its distribution on USENET, These things are not mutually exclusive, but specifically inclusive if you take the time to read the reference material. If you read the historical reference provided by the ISOC organization it will specifically outline a decision to define the Internet and it was not framed until 1995, furthermore it was deregulated and privatized the same year allowing for local ISP distribution. So to say the Internet is a distribution model is a little over stated, the ISOC defines it as a protocol. Shareware was the distribution model and USENET was merely the protocol used to conduct it. Now to the specific discussion it was BBS's that were used to distribute files at the time, BBS networks, and the BBS's acted as the distribution points to local users for download. Many users with University or corporate access would download the files via USENET and then further distribute the shareware to local BBS's. This is also described in the supporting material. To refute them without even taking the time to read them might be considered premature. I think we need to not obscure the past with tales of present technology that was not framed in the context of the time reference Deathmolor (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Deathmolor, you have now stated four times that I have refused to read the refs. This is simply false. Again, you refuse to assume good faith and rely on personal attacks. Please read WP:CIV.
You keep insisting that consensus has been reached while saying that I am wrong. Do you not understand the contradiction?
I believe you are now in violation of WP:3RR, but have not made a complaint. Please try to abide by WP rules. I would suggest that you revert your last article edit to bring yourself back into compliance.
Now, as to the edits. You state “Between 1979 and 1999 computers of course did not disappear nor did file sharing, the Internet had not taken a foothold yet and was not available to the regular home user.” The Internet was just as available to the home user before 1999 as were BBSs. Your refs do not support your words.
You state “Basically networks of sysops would make nightly calls to share files and message board information.” I am certain that this occurred to some small degree. But, it was not the bulk of file-sharing prior to 1999. AOL, Compuserve, USENET all existed long before 1999 and included massive file sharing. File sharing was also abundant on time-sharing systems going back decades. Your characterization of pre-1999 file sharing as a group of independent BBS sysops paying for their own phone lines is simply not accurate and not supported by your refs.
Doom was released on USENET. USENET was/is not a group of independent sysops paying their own telecom costs. Costs were originally funded primarily by TUCC. Again, your characterization is incorrect and not supported by your refs.
Shareware, in its heyday, was not primarily distributed by independent sysops paying their own costs. AOL, Compuserve, USENET and the Web compromise the bulk of shareware distribution. And it simply makes no sense to say that Shareware has disappeared when there are over 700 Shareware sites. Look at alone. This one site (created prior to 1999) now has over 100,000,000 visitors a year.Objective3000 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not catch that you are right it should say 1995 I changed it to read 1995 as it was originally intended, thank you for pointing out that mistake. You might have made this whole discussion moot by just corrected the date error yourself. And the 4th edit was yours not mine. Deathmolor (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about 1995 and you haven't responded to a single point. And you still don't understand WP:3RR. There is no consensus.Objective3000 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your entire follow-up argument, is regarding the 1999 date 1st, one 1999, second 1999, 3rd non sequitur, 4th 1999. Three of the four arguments posed have no basis when the date error is corrected. (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that simply is not true. My arguments re sysops, shareware, AOL, Compuserve, USENET, Doom all stand.Objective3000 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional refinements made in an attempt to appease arguments against this contribution. I hope that makes people happy. Seems only semantics in the wording used is in question and worth further edit and review since the facts are not in question. Deathmolor (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a matter of semantics. Your statement that the facts are not in question is beyond belief. I keep showing how the facts are wrong, and you keep declaring that consensus has been reached without even responding to any points. The edit is in dispute. You should not continue editing without consensus. You should remove the edits, copy the text here, and discuss instead of declaring yourself correct, declaring that there is consensus, unilaterally making changes and posting personal characterizations on my Talk Page. I realize that you have no respect for WP rules, as you have stated. But, WP is a collaborative effort. Please collaborate.Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on File sharing and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The request made at the Third Opinion Project was procedural: "Request advice on proper method of editing article prior to consensus." This opinion is limited to that issue. Except for unsourced negative information about living persons and copyright violations and one or two other narrow exceptions, the best practices for unsourced or questionably sourced information (including original research) added to Wikipedia are, first, try to find sources to help the author who introduced the material, then, second, to tag it with one of the variants of {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} and leave it in place to allow the introducing editor to try to properly cite it. If that has not been done within a reasonable period of time — I once had a reference to template documentation that said thirty days was a good rule of thumb, but I've either lost it or it has been changed — then it can be removed, since it is the introducing editor's obligation to provide reliable sources within a reasonable period of time. All of that is in the burden of proof policy. However, it must be noted that these are best practices, not policies or guidelines, and it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines to remove such information immediately. If such a removal is reverted, then the only limitation on what happens next is that an edit war cannot result. While a violation of the three revert rule is the most clear–cut definition of an edit war, it is to be kept in mind that the three revert rule also says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." WP:EW defines edit warring as "combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you both that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. Decide this dispute by discussion, do a RFC (which would be my recommendation, try {{rfctag|sci}}), take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop reverting and reasserting.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Either of the projects listed at the top of this talk page would be another good place to ask for some help from other editors. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have added the RFC tag.Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I thank you as well and would like to welcome other editors as suggested earlier. Deathmolor (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason that I reverted the original edit was that it was clearly Original Research and had numerous errors. To put tags on every dubious statement would have looked punitive as I would have had to tag every sentence. I asked that the edit be discussed before reposting, but the editor would not discuss. He continued to make numerous edits to the section while the section was in dispute declaring that consensus was reached, when clearly there was no consensus. He continued to argue with personal statements about the editor here and on my Talk page instead of discussing the subject at hand. My numerous attempts to nudge him into collaboration were met by disdain for Wikipedia rules. I apologize if this was not the correct procedure, but could simply find no way to get him to discuss my points. And, he has still not discussed the points, merely claiming that consensus has been reached and that the facts are not in dispute and continuing to edit a section under dispute. As I have stated numerous times, I would be happy to discuss the issues with the section. With the words, not his perceived notions of my personal motivations and weaknesses. If he can be nudged into discussing my points instead of making unilateral changes and denying the very existence of a disagreement, I feel confident that we can come to an agreement.Objective3000 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not really clear what the RfC is about, so you might want to create a new section (above this comment, maybe?) that states the problem in a clear, concise way. The RfC guidelines say to "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." As a whole, though, I find Deathmolor's edits to be largely unacceptable. If nothing else, there's a big problem with sourcing. More specifically, and are self-published sources and are not allowed to be used as references. I also find text like "Between 1979 and 1995 computers of course did not disappear nor did file sharing" to be awkward and unencyclopedic overall. I understand the gist of what was trying to be added in, but this isn't the right way to go about it. It's a combination of poor sourcing and original research. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well that is a comment I can work with. I will make another edit to address just this but please don't remove the text completely research material covering the shareware days and movement are particularly hard to find as this era of computers was not heavily documented on the Internet so please give this article time to evolve rather then to remove it completely. Thank you. Deathmolor (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
About the reference at the bottom of the reference if people take the time to look through it, it contains quotes and comments from the industry professionals themselves. Blogs are considered acceptable sources if they themselves source material contained within. Please examine the source before refuting it. Deathmolor (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I added an interview of Scott Miller from Apogee and I reused the source of the BBStext files already used in the bulletin board systems section. Now a lot of this part of the article is supported by references already sited in sections of wiki but for this contribution to stand it would seem people are not interested in following through and reading those sections as they pertain the this one. I find that this is more of restating what was said there but this section deserves a mention. There is a hole in file sharing section and the hole is there because of BBSing is being ignored. This era in history deserves more. The Internet was not as accessible back then as people seem to think, for instance in my area of the world there was no way to get Internet access other then going to University. Anyway those are my thoughts added to the discussion and I would hope that other editors don't just go removing this section. Deathmolor (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, using blogs for quotes isn't an acceptable thing to do. How do you know that the blog hasn't messed with the quote? The problem with using self-published sources is that the text in them is not verifiable in any way. Like, suppose you had a blog that said, "Thomas Jefferson once said, 'I am king of the world'". By your logic, you could use that in the article on him - but you can't.
There's another sourcing problem here, though: the sources don't match what's in the article. does not say "Calls would be made at night because they were cheaper and sysops had to pay by the minute to transfer files." It's just two graphs, neither of which are reliable either. And where does directly say that "In the time period between 1979 and 1995, the Internet as a word had not been defined and local IPS's did not exist as the net had not yet been privatized."? I'm not seeing it. I'm going to go through the text and edit it quite a bit. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Deathmolor continues to revert and edit a section in dispute.Objective3000 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm trying to work with him to get some of the text in. I think there is some intrinsic value in explaining what happened to file sharing in the mid 80s; the article is sort of lacking that. There's a better way to get the text in, though, and that's what I hope to do.
Deathmolor: A lot of this text is out of the scope of this article. What does "Calls would be made at night because they were cheaper and sysops had to pay by the minute to transfer files." have to do with filesharing? Whatever time people were calling in is unimportant and has no bearing on the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Understood, but nearly everthing in the edit is incorrect and/or irrelevant. Currently, it substantially detracts from the article and will take a great deal of work. I suggest that the edit be removed and that proposed text be created anew here. If we wish to talk file sharing in the 80s, much should be added. A major source was CDs inserted in books and magazines and made available at conferences and fairs. There is no mention of Compuserve, or pre-web AOL.Objective3000 (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I just rewrote nearly all of the text to be more encyclopedic and to use actual references. I think it achieves the point a lot better, so take a look and tell me what you think. You're right about there not being a mention of CDs, Compuserve, or AOL, so add that in if you can find references for it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Certainly a vast improvement. But, aren't BBSs and USENET covered in the prior two paragraphs, along with their linked articles? regards, Objective3000 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wouldn't say covered; they're more mentioned. The previous paragraph talks about Usenet, but the paragraph in question here is more about the BBSes and shareware. I think it's pretty okay. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Close enough. It resolves WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS. Probably best to update the BBS article to mention Compuserve and pre-web AOL as they were BBSs and had more to do with Shareware availablility than independents. Many thanks for your help. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll remove the RFC tag.Objective3000 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I rather like the resulting brief, more to the point, edit. Thank you very much for the edit, we can work on adding more detail with compuserv and AOL as time goes on. Compuserv for many though was absurdly expensive. People would pay thousands of dollars for that service a month in countries other then the US. The Internet only existed in 27 countries and Fidonet had over 120,000 systems at its peak and was in almost every country in the world. Fidonet did surpass the Internet in size as did WWIVnet and many other BBS networks. I will personally follow your example and be more direct and to the point. i am very excited about the article covering those days before Internet's framing as many of us found that time period to be pivotal. File sharing and P2P began then not on the Internet as people have come to believe. Dare i say the Internet would not be where it was if it were not for BBS networks. Deathmolor (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh before someone tries to refute that claim by comparing Internet Hosts to Fidonet nodes. Keep in mind almost all Fidonet nodes were servers and not every Internet node was a server in around 1990. here is the numbers if anyone cares to look and Deathmolor (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The I’Net almost never was (to put it colloquially). In the 70s, when the CIA turned ARPA over to the DoD and it was renamed DARPA, the DoD looked at ARPANet and decided that it had been co-opted by university researchers and in its polluted state was no longer of any use to the Pentagon. They put out a letter to the sites housing the nodes that gov’t funding would be halted and that they would have to self-fund if they wanted the backbone to continue. The expenses were quite high. The nodes were small Honeywell computers, a bit larger than a PDP-8. But, leased lines and high-speed digital “modems” were extraordinarily expensive. A digital modem (pardon the oxymoron) for one of the lower-speed links (56Kb if I remember correctly) was five feet tall. The universities rebelled and convinced the gov’t to continue funding for the ARPANet backbone. Without this action in the early 70s, there might not be an Internet. I only know this because it would have affected my budget at the time. I can’t put this in any WP article as I know of no reliable sources.Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The way us hobbyists were going at the time we would have found a way to create the internet anyway. FidoNet was huge, WWIVnet already had a distributed Intenet like structure we only needed to get the hardware prices down to the point where we could start making "always on" connections. It would have happened just not as fast as it did. The hobbyists did feel alone and segregated from the people who had access to academic technology in most countries. We were of the mind that they were keeping the good stuff to themselves so we would just use the tools at hand and make it happen on our end. Honestly the hobbyists did an awesome job but we really had no idea what was in store, i was part of a DSL test group in 1996 and turned off the BBS two days later. My thought was, thats it, its done. Deathmolor (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of "Illegal file sharing" term[edit]

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)

Will establish peer-to-peer file sharing article[edit]

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)

Kazaa Lite[edit]

Paul Ruch, please stop adding the Kazaa Lite text to the article. 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)

Some statistics about filesharing[edit]

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)

Academic Filesharing[edit]

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)

File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg, 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)

Effects of file sharing[edit]

This edit was undone because it was largely duplicated from the section I rewrote on Trade group efforts against file sharing. That is fair. However, on account of this being a notable topic that is not very well reflected in this (the primary) article, I intend to trim the former section and replace the text here. If people wish to learn more about the effects of file sharing they can start here. — ThePowerofX 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No objection. :)
mfg, OldDeath - 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable studies[edit]

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 [1][2][3][4], 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 [5][6][7] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Swiss report[edit]

"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."[8]

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)

George R.Barker study[edit]

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:

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)

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)
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)


Proposed merge with File sharing in North Korea[edit]

Not nearly important enough to be its own article. GSK 23:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with File sharing in Japan[edit]

Not nearly important enough to be its own article. GSK 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


  • 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)
  • Yes. We know that North Korea ignores international law and treaties. Should there be a separate article for N. Korea for every aspect of international relations? Or, a footnote here and maybe a mention on N. Korea's article. The concepts are the same in all countries. The Berne Convention was signed by nearly all countries and technology is technology. Minor differences can be handled within one article. (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not what the article is about. Xrt6L (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. I favor a merger, since the proliferation of articles ("File sharing in X country", "File sharing in the 19XX's") could get very messy. Merging into the main article actually will give more opportunity for page views and the chance that readers will learn about the variations around the globe. -- Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dotcom extradition[edit]

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

Addition to lead[edit]

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)