On Ethics And Music Piracy

Great Debates
1

I think it’s necessary to start off this OP with a disclaimer, since I’ve seen that the moderators here do not take kindly to threads related to file-sharing. I think this is more a question about ethics than a question about file sharing. I suppose the mods may think differently and close it, but I just wanted to make it clear that I am not deliberately trying to violate the “encouraging or explaining illegal activites” portion of the user agreement.

So, here’s the deal. At age 19, I have never once purchased a CD or cassette new. I own 3 CDs, all of which were given to me as gifts, 1 cassette, which I purchased for 25c at a garage sale, and a box of old '70s and '80s record albums that I rescued from somebody’s trash. Before the file-sharing stuff came about, I listened to the radio, and occasionally taped songs off the radio. My explanation is simply that I am very cheap, and I would rather do without luxury items than spend for them. As far as I know, all of the aforementioned methods of getting music (receiving as a gift, buying secondhand, trash-picking, and taping off the radio) are legal. It’s possible that taping off the radio is illegal for some reason, but that strikes me as unlikely, considering that I know for a fact that taping TV shows for personal use is perfectly legal.

My point is that my personal history proves that I would rather do without music than pay for it. Therefore, if it were not possible for me to listen to music for free or for a very low price, I simply wouldn’t.

So, here’s the big ethical question. Is it still unethical (I’m not talking about illegal, I’m aware that it is) for me to download music on file sharing services? The fact is that, if I could not download music, I wouldn’t buy it instead. I just wouldn’t get it at all. No matter what happens, the record companies do not stand to lose a cent, because they would never get money from me in any case.

Now, one objection that might come up is as follows: “Suppose I never eat apple pie, because it’s not worth enough to me to pay for. I would never pay for an apple pie, so by your logic, it’s OK for me to steal one instead.” My response to that is that there is a logical difference between stealing an apple pie and making an illegal COPY of a piece of music. By stealing the pie, I would be depriving the owner of it, or of the money he could make by selling it to someone ELSE. But when I can copy something, it does not take it away from its owner, it only takes me out of the market of people who might buy it. And I was not IN that market to begin with!

So, what do you think? I do want to confine this debate to my particular case; that is, I won’t consider objections like, “well, if everybody downloaded music…” because I think it’s pretty clear that not everybody had the same (lack of) buying habits that I do.

-Andrew L

2

I believe it is ethical. The product in question is nothing more than information, and no one is harmed if you get it for free.

It’s like standing outside a drive-in movie theater and seeing the movie for free. You’re enjoying the content without paying for it, and no one is harmed in the process.

3

OK, i’ll bite. Whether you want to confine this to your particular case or not, it is unethical for you to download music from a file-sharing service. Any argument to the contrary is simply rationalization. I say this primarily due to the fact that you propose to engage in activity that you ‘know’ is illegal and that you are doing this for your benefit alone.

If you don’t feel that it is worth the price to be able to listen to what you want, when you want, tune in to any of the ‘streaming audio’ radio stations.

4

Mr2001-

I basically agree with you, although it seems that your argument legitimizes ALL file sharing, on the grounds that making a copy of information is always acceptable, since you are not “taking away” anything by doing so. I find that broader justification more difficult to swallow, because it inevitably brings up that pesky “What if everybody downloaded music” rebuttal. I consider myself to be something of a special case, because I know, and my music listening history bears out, that I will not buy recordings at anywhere near full price (and therefore, not from a source that will forward my money to the record companies) under any circumstances. For most people, I don’t think that’s true. However, as is commonly argued, it’s also possible that they will buy MORE music after getting a chance to sample it in MP3 form. But here I am getting away from my original case.

octothorpe-

It seems to me that your objection is basically, “Doing something that you know to be illegal is inherently unethical, regardless of circumstances.” I realize that is a part of a major school of philosophy (see Kant), so I can’t say that it’s absolutely wrong, but I happen to disagree with it. I think that laws can at best be general guidelines, and that actual circumstances should always take precedence. People who write laws cannot possibly take into account every situation in which their law might be invoked.

-Andrew L

5

njufoic

Actually, i didn’t say, nor did i mean to imply that it was simply that black and white. If you’ll notice, in the second part of my reason i wrote, “…for your benefit alone.” Personally, i feel that if you were to steal a loaf of bread to feed your sister’s children (see Hugo) the act itself would be illegal, but it would be ethical in that you took a risk, however minor, to aid another.

The reason that you hint at:

speaks more to anarchy than to being ‘cheap’. Under this condition, your downloading through file-sharing fits the ethics of your beliefs.

6

I have a small collection of music videos I’ve downloaded from various sources.

None of these videos are available commercially on video or DVD. Most were rarely ever played on the major music video channels. If I had a TV and the local cable provider offered the specialty music video channels I suppose I might have some hope of seeing them on TV, but I doubt MTV will be showing The Kinks’ “Come Dancing” anytime soon.

It is my understanding that artists do not receive royalties from broadcasts of their videos anyway. Music videos are apparently considered a form of promotion, not something to profit from other than by encouraging album sales/radio airplay.

Given all this, is it unethical for me to download these videos for free?

7

Oh, you mean unlicensed copies. Sorry. I keep waiting for stories about armed assaults on the high seas, buried CD’s and eye-patches. Never mind.

8

octothorpe-

The main reason that I mentioned my money not going to the record companies was to point out that, given something resembling their present marketing system, there is no way that my money would be getting to them regardless of whether MP3s were available for illegal download or not. The price that I might be willing to pay for music, if any, would be so low that there is no way the record companies would ever offer anything that cheaply.

As for my being cheap: I am a college student, and I make most of my money by eBaying used hubcaps that I find on the roadside. I try to avoid getting “real jobs”, but I also don’t want to mooch off my parents for everyday expenses, so instead I just try to live cheaply. I don’t buy random things just for the heck of it, and I do as much trash picking as possible (plenty of good/repairable TVs, VCRs, stereos, phones, etc. to be found that way). I suppose one might say that I have an anarchic streak because I like to be self-sufficient and I am not big on throwing money at corporations, but it’s not as if I go around wantonly breaking laws whenever I feel like it, a mode of behavior commonly (though perhaps incorrectly) associated with anarchists.

A “real” anarchist probably would not draw any distinction between illegally downloading vs. not buying music at all, and illegally downloading vs. buying. While I am not exactly the world’s biggest fan of unchecked capitalism, I do realize that since that’s the system we’re dealing with, we do need to make a reasonable effort to play by some rules and not to screw over other people through outright theft, or the system would collapse, and not in a good way.

That’s why, if the possibility entered my mind that I might ever be willing to pay $18.00 for a CD, I would have to think twice about whether downloading music could still be justified.

-Andrew L

9

njufoic

Sorry, i didn’t mean to class you as an anarchist (a word with an uglier connotation than it deserves). Although i believe that the greater majority of the population exhibit some behaviour that can be considered anarchistic, that doesn’t necessarily mean that most people are anarchists.

However, i don’t think that being in financial straits relaxes the line on ethics. That said, i also don’t think that all laws are necessarily just and i, personally, am willing to break a given law (speeding, for instance) without worrying about the ‘ethics’. At the same time, i am also willing to pay whatever price breaking that law would entail.

I’m also not saying that just because something is un-ethical that it shouldn’t be done. The major labels (and by default the smaller ones) will probably not change their ways unless they are forced to. Once these behemoths get it through their thick skulls that there is money to be made by sheer volume on inexpensive downloads, we may see some semblance of rationality in the music industry.

Right now, if i could download songs at a quarter a piece, i’d be glued to my computer for a solid week. And i think there are enough people willing to pay the same to allow the labels to rake it in. To read an elegant article on the subject, check out what Janis Ian has to say.

I just don’t think that you should rationalize the illegal downloading of music by arguing the ethics of it.

10

How is it not ethical?

Nobody has lost anything, not even the RIAA. Some might argue that any songs I download causes the loss of a sale, but this does not hold if I refuse to pay through my noise for a CD for just 3 or 4 songs I like to listen to.

11

It’s unethical because you do not have a right to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s intellectual labour for nothing.

I too try to justify my d/loaded music collection by saying that I wouldn’t buy them anyways, and that therefore no-one is loosing out. But although this is true, it is not (IMO) the point…

Music, literature or art in general do not ‘automatically’ belong in the public domain. If I were to create a piece of music or write a novel I am the sole owner of that piece of work, and I ‘owe’ nothing to anyone else. If I choose to share that artefact - either for free or by exchanging the right to use it for cash - then that is my business and my business alone.

So when you d/load a tune you are not behaving ethically, even though the artist can still use it, and even though from a financial position the artist is in the same situation as if you had not downloaded it.

I DJ quite a lot at my university, and I play songs that I would never pay to listen to myself but I play them because that’s what people like to hear. I do not get paid for DJing, and often I have had people come up to me throughout the night and ask what a certain tune is so that they can then go out and purchase it. So in that respect, I am actually increasing the artist’s revenue even though I ‘stole’ the tune in the first place.

It’s still unethical though.

12

emarkp, could you please stop beating that horse? I’ve already mentioned it in another thread, but just in case you missed it, “piracy” is generally considered an accurate term for illegal software copying. In fact, it’s in the OED as a valid definition, for Kdapt’s sake. So please, give it a rest, huh?

13

Suppose, then, that you live in a 10th floor apartment across from a drive-in theater. At any time, you can look out your window and “enjoy the fruits of someone else’s intellectual labour for nothing.” Is it unethical to look out the window?

In fact, most of us can enjoy music for free, using a radio. Sure, someone is paying for it: the radio station pays royalties to the record companies (who in turn pay independent promoters, who pay the radio stations).

But if I sit at home and listen to Christina Aguilera 10 times a day on top 40 radio, I’m not paying a dime–and the record company and artist are earning the exact same royalties, whether my radio is on or off.

How can it be unethical to download that song and listen to it for free on my computer, when I could just as easily hear it for free on the radio?

14

I’m not sure to which point it is unethical to download music for free, but I’m sure it’s ethical to pay the artist for the enjoyment you get from his music. So I don’t like theconcept of downloading music for free.
However, these services are very useful to listen to various songs or artists you don’t know about, and which are, for instance, recommanded by a

15

I’m not sure to which point it is unethical to download music for free, but I’m sure it’s ethical to pay the artist for the enjoyment you get from his music. So I don’t like theconcept of downloading music for free.
However, these services are very useful to listen to various songs or artists you don’t know about, and which are, for instance, recommanded by a friend. But of course, to listen them, you’ve to download them for free at the first place. There’s no way I’m going to buy a CDjust to check out an artist (well…actually I did so very recently and was unfortunately very dissapointed by the three CDs I bought…I listen to them once and now they’re going to take the dust), and in most cases it’s quite complicatedto listen them before deciding about the purchase (I’m not talking about famous artists who are played fifty times a day on radios, of course) . So, downloading is very useful for this purpose.

Also, I’m amongst these people who generally, with very rare exception, like only a couple of songs from any given CD. And having to buy the whole thing for just one song is quite is quite irritating.

So, I’m amongst these people who would happily pay for downloading songs (and I would be ready to pay more than a quarter…say perhaps 1 or 2 $/song), if such a service existed. But even that wouldn’t solve the first problem…how do I listen to say song to decide whether or not I want to buy it at the first place? Though some technical solution could probably be found.

Of course, such a service has very few chances to make any serious money, since I doubt there are that much people ready to pay to download songs when they can do exactly the same thing for free (and without having to give their credit card number, etc…). The honor system has limits.

16

I’m not sure to which point it is unethical to download music for free, but I’m sure it’s ethical to pay the artist for the enjoyment you get from his music. So I don’t like theconcept of downloading music for free.
However, these services are very useful to listen to various songs or artists you don’t know about, and which are, for instance, recommanded by a friend. But of course, to listen them, you’ve to download them for free at the first place. There’s no way I’m going to buy a CDjust to check out an artist (well…actually I did so very recently and was unfortunately very dissapointed by the three CDs I bought…I listen to them once and now they’re going to take the dust), and in most cases it’s quite complicatedto listen them before deciding about the purchase (I’m not talking about famous artists who are played fifty times a day on radios, of course) . So, downloading is very useful for this purpose.

Also, I’m amongst these people who generally, with very rare exception, like only a couple of songs from any given CD. And having to buy the whole thing for just one song is quite is quite irritating.

So, I’m amongst these people who would happily pay for downloading songs (and I would be ready to pay more than a quarter…say perhaps 1 or 2 $/song), if such a service existed. But even that wouldn’t solve the first problem…how do I listen to say song to decide whether or not I want to buy it at the first place? Though some technical solution could probably be found.

Of course, such a service has very few chances to make any serious money, since I doubt there are that much people ready to pay to download songs when they can do exactly the same thing for free (and without having to give their credit card number, etc…). The honor system has limits.

17

But whose “intellectual labour” is it?

If you are buying a CD, only a small fraction of your $ goes towards the artist/group, RIAA keeps the lions share.

If I can pay the artist/group directly, and I get to choose what songs I pay for, I will gladly do it.

Right now, I don’t see a need to support a corrupt organisation such as the RIAA, who forces me to pay for a whole bunch of junk when I buy CD’s.

So I listen to the radio instead, and switch to another station when the commericals comes on?

Is that unethical?

18

But that’s not quite accurate, now is it? Consider:

Wouldn’t a reasonable person assume that if the file-sharing option wasn’t available, you’d be listening to the radio? While you are not paying directly to the record companies/artists, you are paying with your time and attention, which the radio stations sell to advertisers, which then compensate the record companies and artists. Any copy (tape) you make for personal use is considered reasonable. If you then reproduced that tape, and gave it away to friends, you would be violating the law (even if you made no money from it). It is a business model that all involved have consented to.

Yes, your behavior is both illegal and unethical.

It is a fallacy to suggest that turning off your radio doesn’t cost the radio station. In your specific case, that may be correct, but in the general case, the station sells advertising based on the estimates of the number of people listening.

From my perspective, the more interesting question is this: Being considerably older than you, I happened to have purchased alot of music in my days. I’ve purchased LPs, eight track tapes, a few cassettes, and many CDs. In some cases, I purchased a specific album on eight-track. When eight-track was no longer viable, I purchased the same album on vinyl. When CDs came along, I purchased the same album on CD. Each time, I paid not only for the media itself, but also for personal rights to the intellectual property itself. But I overpaid for the license rights by two or three times!

Question: Is it legal and ethical for me to download a song from an album that I purchased previously (and still own in a different media)? Mind you, I could just rip it, and as long as it is for personal use, I think I am within my rights, legally and ethically (re-distribution would be a no-no, I recognize). I see no issue here, but the RIAA would still prevent me from doing so.

And perhaps more interestingly, have I been financially harmed by over-paying for the same license over and over again? If I download a few songs which I have not owned previously, but whose equivalent license value is less than I have overpayed, who is more financially harmed, me or the record companies?

19

However, those estimates are the same whether I’m listening to the radio or not. Unless I’m one of the lucky few who is polled about my radio listening habits every N months, it makes no difference which station I listen to.

If I listen to the radio all day, changing the station as soon as a commercial comes on, I can hear music for free all day. Is that unethical? (Consider that if everyone else did the same, the advertisers would quickly realize that advertising dollars no longer correspond to sales, and stop paying for ads.)

The television content industry has already spoken out against skipping advertisements in recorded TV shows. Is it unethical to automatically skip commercials when recording a show, or must the TV station (and advertisers) assume the risk that people will only pay attention to the parts of the broadcast that interest them?

I believe it is ethical. Indeed, I’d say it’s also ethical to download songs which you previously owned on a CD that was lost or stolen.

If, by buying a CD, you’re paying for a license to hear the music (rather than paying for ownership of the disc and the information therein), then you have the ethical right to have a personal copy of that music in any format. The license is not tied to the physical media; if you accidentally step on the CD, you still have a license to hear the songs.

On the other hand, if the copyright holders claim that the vinyl, cassette, and CD versions of “Dark Side of the Moon” are each separate products (due to differences in media or quality), and licensing one doesn’t give you any rights to the others, then the same must be true of MP3. The waveform of a song in MP3 format is quite different from the uncompressed waveform of the same song on CD, so by that logic, the record companies have no rights to any MP3s you create from the CD.

20

this is really sad. 99.9% of the time, people who download music will buy what they really like. People like this guy ruin it for the rest of us.

If you have already decided that you’re never going to buy a CD, not only is it unethical for you to download music, but it’s also unethical for you to listen to anything. If you are in a public place where music can be heard, you have an ethical responsibility to leave or put earplugs in.

If you’re NEVER going to buy a CD, it’s a lot more unethical for YOU to download music than it is for ME to download music; I buy CDs… my purchases being influenced greatly by the music I download.

Unless you’re a welfare mother, you have no excuse. An $11.99 CD at best buy is not a “luxury item.” Far from it.