This is pretty much the same kind of argument that extremists use to defend their position when they really believe in something and can get no one else to go along with it. The thing is, the mounds of evidence and the fact that these large entities that claim to represent this artist or that one, aren’t representing them at all and gobbling up the money being had from new, and innovative ways of distribution that costs them virtually nothing.

The fight against file sharing isn’t one about money so much as it is about the control of distribution and innovation. If one can control and regulate distribution, then one can set whatever price they wish. Now that the once complete control is slipping away from the large companies, they cry foul and blame innovative platforms for their “losses”.

The point to all these posts defending file sharing is not the defense of getting something for free, but the recognition of near free distribution cuts out the need for extraneous and archaic systems that actually hurt economic growth. Even someone with a little economic sense should be able to see that the creation of something, then sharing and allowing others to distribute it at no cost to the creator, is the same as word of mouth advertising. And just as word of mouth advertising will not always yield direct sales from people that have been given shared information, so too will file sharing not always yield direct sales from people that download and listen, or watch, or play digitized formats.

The real gain in the end is that MORE people know, MORE people will care about the content, and MORE people will be willing to pay for the content if presented in manner that means something to them, tangibly. A digital file means little to someone who is unable to show it off. A limited collector’s edition box set extravaganza that contains the digital file means a lot. If it didn’t, the kinds of wacky box sets of tv shows, music albums, and movies would not exist and wouldn’t be so successful, yet they are tremendously successful.

Throwing out a claim that anyone file sharing is automatically a pirate is not realistic because people who share files and download files do not think of it as an act of theft when there’s no physical theft involved and their inclination is correct. If they went to a store walked out with a CD under their jacket, that IS theft, because that’s not something that can be infinitely reproduced and shared with others.

File sharing is a market shift, not a criminal act. Many artists have been fed the idea that the act of file sharing is directly stealing their work, when it’s not. The artists who understand (and there are many), know that when they enter the market expecting to make money from their work, they do so with the knowledge that they are going to be competing, as that’s what a free market is all about.

The thing is, an artist has a distinct advantage in their kind of market because music (and this applies to all media) can be controlled directly by the artist. If its good, then people will pay attention and the artist’s efforts will be rewarded by the sale of tangible goods. A t-shirt, collector’s box, or signed cd are things that the artist can sell that will give their fans a real sense of connectedness to that artist.

Trying to profit from digital content alone will only end in disaster, and trying to sell digital content without ever sharing it, but relying on physical goods for sales, only hurts their chances of being known by others. Sharing small portions without giving them the ability to listen to the whole album is better, but a limiting factor because you may miss potential fans that didn’t care for the shared content but may have enjoyed the rest of the content that wasn’t provided. Sharing in its entirety gives people the chance to evaluate the artist and decide if they like them or not.

That’s where you get the true fans, because those that are given the opportunity to evaluate haven’t invested anything except a bit of time to know if they like an artist or not. There are art exhibits and street musicians that give the public their work out in the open and all they expect is a bit of your time. Good artists know that people are more than willing to pay for a good performance. Really good artists know that people are happier when they can take a bit of that performance with them to show to others.

When someone shares content, people that are really moved are going to want a piece of that artist’s work in some way. Digital files do not give them what they want, but the artwork, apparel, album, etc will give them that. A book by an author that I like is far more valuable in my hands than in PDF form on my hard drive (and printing the book from my own printer is not the same).

Digital media is not able to fulfill that role. It’s not a centerpiece, it’s not something of much value until someone puts an artificial price on it, and when that happens, people are less willing to share it with others, and that only hurts the artist because in order for someone to know of the artist in this situation, they would have to be physically present in front of someone’s digital library to know that they even exist. Considering that black and white text in a long list of files is not really a conversation starter, it’s highly doubtful that anyone would even make a passing glance at an artist and be intrigued enough to listen and buy the content.

Let’s face it, if an artist is bad, no one will want their content anyways, even if it is free. Let’s also come to terms that the industry heads that want to regulate content are doing so because they understand what the internet has given to artists, and that’s a way to skip the middle man and go directly to their fans. Further, artists that are bad will go away (the industry has produced many one-hit wonders that are generally considered very bad artists), but artists that may have never been able to make it in the music industry on their own are now given an opportunity to share their work with people in a way that would never be possible if regulations and financial blocks are put in place to deny people access to their content (or the industry itself hindering their ability to succeed because the industry determines whether the work will be a success or not).

It’s not only shortsighted, but a complete denial of what’s in front of us if we perceive file sharing as criminal.