Bittorrent Case Analysis

1341 Words 5 Pages
BitTorrent is an internet protocol which supports peer-to-peer(p2p) file sharing to hand out large amounts of data around the world. Essentially this program takes the hassle of transferring large data file from one huge server to every user over an extremely robust network connection and splits it up to multiple normal pc’s, and multiply smaller networks connections. This software is the most common form of decentralization, starting with its ease of use and wide variety of file sharing capabilities it gives the user and developers. Decentralized file sharing is a peer-to-peer network that contains users called nodes, who act like both a server and client, which then at the same time send and receive data to other users [1]. This advanced …show more content…
In the second section a background and significance of the problem is issued, in subsection 2.1 a music industry controversy will be illustrated. Section three discusses the ethical aspect of BitTorrent, in subsection 3.1 a Kantian ethical point of view is given, while in subsection 3.2 and 3.3 a Utilitarian and Aristotelian (respectively) philosophical questions are asked. In section three a global aspect is given which contrast BitTorrent in India and the United States. Finally, section 4 will sum up the article and illustrate the conclusion highlighting all important …show more content…
By following his standard we gather that it is ethically wrong to file share. Main reason being if everyone was encouraged to file share, it would mean the end to the Music Business, Video Games Business, etc. In a hypothetical Deontological world where BitTorrent or any P2P networks were to exist it would essentially contradict itself. For example, if an artist or producer wanted to sale their unique media creation, they would not be able to make income, since each person would use P2P file sharing and in turn steal intellectual property belonging to someone. Thus making music or any type of media not worth the investment or time consumption to produce. Consequently, Kant says, “We must be able to will that a maxim of our action become a universal law” [4]. This shows that persons change their sayings or maxims in accordance to where other individuals would be able to live a satisfied life, if our sayings were to become law. Furthermore, in a perfect world where file sharing was to be permitted as long as creator of the media gave consent to replicate; then individuals with rational minds would be able to share and produce media in accordance to the

Related Documents