The Ethics of Illegal Music Downloading

Jul 13, 2009 under Personal, Internet, The World. 14 comments. // First time visiting?

The issue of downloading music freely has always been an odd one to me, because it's one of those few topics that, when debated, never reaches a clear conclusion. When two groups come into conflict regarding most other matters, often one group secretly knows that it's wrong but just doesn't want to admit it (I'm convinced that this happens in politics all too frequently, but we can get into my political leanings another time).

For some strange reason, it is this one seemingly-trivial topic of "illegal music downloading" that's been the source of much anxiety for the past several months, because I know that I, the possessor of 2,392 songs, could be guilty of this crime. Strangely enough, however, the possibility that I could get caught has never alarmed me—rather, it's the fact that I've had a "tender conscience" since I was a little girl that has caused my worry.

Generally, when I do something wrong, my conscience tells me it's immoral so strongly that I do whatever I can to correct the situation. With this topic, however, my conscience has been hinting that I'm "wrong" even though another part of me has been suggesting that my actions are perfectly acceptable. In fact, the real issue is that I can't tell if my actions are wrong or if they're wrong to me because I've been told that they should be (and as we all know, when you've been told a lie for long enough, you eventually consider it to be true).

And then...that question then raises yet another question: if downloading music illegally is truly wrong, then why do other people—who I know have "tender consciences" as well—have no problem with illegal downloading themselves?

To me, the morality of the issue is a complex problem that requires a complex answer, and luckily, I've been just obsessed enough to hunt for that answer.

In my findings, most opponents of illegal music downloading embrace the following position:

"If you were to walk into a record store, would you just take a CD and leave without paying? Of course not—illegal music downloading is essentially the same idea. Every time you download a song without payment, you deprive the artist of money that is necessary for him to make a living as well as produce more music for you to enjoy."

This is one of the most obvious arguments in opposition to illegal downloading, but my problem with it is that the issue is not so cut-and-dry. Allow me to explain.

People often oppose the practice of downloading music illegally because "you must support the artist". This position, however, is fundamentally flawed—if that were true, then why isn't it illegal to buy used CDs off Amazon even though artists receive zero direct compensation for it?

Let me put it in a different light (this analogy is a bit shaky because MP3s and concrete objects are fundamentally different, but just understand the underlying logic): should buying iPods from somewhere other than Apple be deemed wrong simply because you really like Apple's products and it is your "duty" to buy their products so that they can create more? Of course not! While it might be nice to buy from Apple, that certainly doesn't render buying from other people an immoral action.

In the same way, illegal music downloading is not unjustifiable on the grounds of an artist's lack of support. So then, where do you draw the line between right and wrong?

While I'm not dictating absolute morality (remember those nasty grey areas), ultimately I think it boils down to whether or not you have the right to own the music, which means that downloading via a shared service like Limewire or Bearshare is wrong simply because you're creating unauthorized copies of the artist's work. At the same time, however, buying used CDs off Amazon is permissible because—provided that the seller did not copy the work onto his computer, which isn't the buyer's responsibility to ensure anyway—no unlawful copies of that CD are being made. This means that the artist is not being deprived of money that should be his, since that CD was paid for when it first entered circulation and can no longer be freely played by its previous owner unless he buys another copy. This page (read Jhollington's posts) summarizes my viewpoint quite nicely if you need further elaboration.

However, although we've dealt with the "rights" aspect, I think there's another facet of this topic that warrants attention: even if the unauthorized reproduction of music takes place incessantly, is it really all that detrimental to the industry?

Now, this is going to sound incredibly nerdy (and I wouldn't blame you if you left my website forever upon reading this), but as I was taking an SAT practice test a few months ago, I came across an "opposing passages" section. While those passages are normally about fascinating topics such as rock formation and obscure animals that only 15% of the population knows about, I actually came across an intriguing article pertaining to the controversy surrounding file sharing.

Basically, what it said was this (I'm trying to paraphrase it as best I can): we must realize that there's an existing distinction between "verbs" and "nouns": verbs are ideas, while nouns are tangible goods. Doctors and lawyers are able to make a living because of their "verbs", but they manage to get along just fine without "owning" their cognition. More relevantly, thousands of years before the first copyright laws originated, Sophocles, da Vinci, Shakespeare, and a slew of other men all found reason to produce some outstanding works without expecting to "own" them.

The article then explained that one band recently learned that when fans taped its concerts and freely reproduced those tapes, those tapes became "marketing viruses" that spread throughout the entire United States. As a result—despite the fact that the tapes were often more entertaining than the studio versions of the songs—many people then decided to buy the band's music simply out of a willingness to support the group.

The article then succinctly concluded by stating that "noncommercial distribution of information increases the sale of commercial information" and that while this most certainly isn't the case with "nouns", the case with "verbs" is totally the reverse. There is a correlation between fame and value that has been all too frequently forgotten: when a person becomes familiar with a band, he's more likely to value its music and thereby purchase it.

So guess what, guys? Someone's been lying to you—stealing music is not akin to stealing a loaf of bread after all.

Hold up, though—I'm sure some of you may argue, "Your logic is irrelevant to real life, because the recording industry has reported a 20% decline in music sales. If a person already has a CD, he's not going to buy it from a store no matter how much he likes the artist."

Okay, fine.

But even though CD sales might face a decline, the difference is negligible considering the increasingly frequent purchases of concert tickets and various merchandise. In other words, you can't honestly expect me to believe that at every U2 concert, every devoted fan in that audience fell love with the music simply because he had spent hundreds of dollars legally completing his collection of U2 albums. In fact, I will tell you myself that if I hadn't "illegally" copied my sister's collection of albums so that I could "investigate" what U2 was all about, I most certainly wouldn't be spending $120 to sit in a mediocre seat at a U2 concert later this year—and I'm sure that's the case with many other fans as well.

Record companies often report (or guess, in all likelihood) all the earnings that are supposedly lost through "illegal downloading", but why don't they bother to also acknowledge the earnings that are gained through the activity? My own theory is that—despite what record companies may have claimed—it never has been about "supporting the artist" (after all, the artist has little to lose, because the artist knows that he can gain money through live shows, merchandise, etc.). Rather, every anti-piracy campaign that these corporations shove down our throats is a result of their own fear of losing money—of not being able to swindle the consumer by charging a heinous $1.29-a-song via iTunes.

Can I blame these companies? No, probably not—America is a capitalist society after all, and by guilt-tripping the consumer into buying music from them, record companies are able to compete and stay in business. But still, all I want is for you to think for a minute: who exactly is illegal downloading really affecting? The humble artists who love to create music or the corporate big-shots who run the recording industry?

While I'm not justifying illegal downloading in any way, maybe...just maybe this very practice is exactly what the music industry needs after all. If artists gain much of their money through live shows, then perhaps they'll be forced to actually have talent instead of relying on layers of studio-produced synthesizers and heavily-distorted vocals to make them appear to have talent.

And if the popular artists are only the ones who can actually perform, then maybe...just maybe I'll be able to stand listening to Top 40 again.