Today's Topic: downloading music for free
Please send your thoughts...
"hey! The Christmas curtain falls on lawbreakers
that pave the way for thoughtless folks like me and j who'd pay,
but can't afford the finer things in life so we heist them all..
we're criminals that never break the law!"
Perhaps there is no ethical decision faced by more people each day than the choice to steal music or to refrain from doing so. (Except, perhaps, determining whether or not to kill the fucking boss.) The internet and digital music formats have converged in a way that allows us all to be as nasty as we wanna be when it comes to downloading, burning, and trading new music. The ease with which we can all steal music is unparalleled in our history. Pretty much any song you want, you can now get for free. Record companies are doing everything they can and spending as much as their greedy little budgets allow to prevent it, even coming up with some nasty attack-style solutions to cripple the computers of people who engage in internet song-sharing. For the most part, though, they have stayed one step behind the crafty internet geeks who they are trying to shut down. Each week, it seems, there are two critical court decisions regarding the legality of the practice of song swapping. One goes against the swappers, one goes against the record companies. Since even people who are experts in copyright law are having a hard time deciding what is legal and what isn't, let's just take a moment to try to figure out what is ethical on an individual basis. In short, is it OK that you steal music every day? Is there a way to do it that's more right than others?
I think in five years we will look back on this three to five year period as a freak occasion where the technological advantage was in the hands of the people, and the huge corporations were scratching their heads trying to catch up. I think by 2007 or so, free internet music sharing will be at a very small percentage of what it is now. This is a Golden Age of sorts. So part of me wants to say, grab what you can while you can, before the Big 5 (or is it 6?) find a way to make your computer catch on fire for downloading songs. But that is basically a looter's mentality, and as much fun as looting can be, and as much as you can upgrade the look of your apartment by doing it, I don't think that makes it right. In fact, I have no idea whether music-sharing is right or not, but here are some things to consider.
1. Who ultimately pays the price for free music swapping, the artists or the record companies?
We've all repeated to ourselves and others how evil the record labels are, and it makes for a nice excuse to steal from them, Robin Hood-style. But aren't artists hurt by this swapping, too? Wouldn't most wildly-downloading music fans feel more guilty if they knew they were taking money out of the pockets of their favorite bands? Well, I certainly don't have the data to answer this one (who needs information to take a stand anyway?). But I do know that the more albums a band sells, the more money they make, or to be more accurate, the less money they end up owing the record company (unless they're Justin Timberlake or something, who actually makes money). So by downloading music you would otherwise buy, you are indeed making things a little worse for your favorite scraggly rock dudes. Not that they ever really have to pay the record company back the money they owe them, but the larger debt they incur, the less freedom, and the more misery, they'll have in their careers. (For more on the plight of a typical young band, refer to Steve Albini's famous treatise on the subject.) Of course, a lot of people are of the mindset that says, "Hey, rocker boy is up onstage living his dream, getting hummers from different women each night, and I am stuck here in Scranton working part-time as a pool cleaner. I don't give a damn if I cost him money. His life, financial and otherwise, beats the shit out of mine." I don't completely disagree with this line of thinking, except that applying it there leads to applying it in other ways, like, say, not tipping someone who makes more money than you do, even if their income is dependent entirely on tips, or shoplifting from a giant department store because they are rich and won't miss it, and you are poor and really need that Spuds McKenzie sweatshirt. I remember once when I was about 15 my friend and I stole a watermelon from a Korean grocer. We ran down the block, giggling and squealing, and eventually realizing we didn't even want the watermelon. A couple of months later, I told my mom the story to try to show her what a bold young son she had. She said, "If you're going to steal, do it at Macy's or something, don't rob from these individual shopkeepers who bust their ass 18 hours a day to make a better life for themselves and their families." Heaven forbid she just say, "Stealing is wrong," but I guess to this day I agree with what she said. Who you steal from has varying degrees of decency. Regardless, you can't just use your own relative lack of success and happiness as an excuse to be a cheapskate and take bread off other people's tables, or watermelons from other people's family-owned businesses. Or even new shirts from the Greg Norman collection at Macy's. Well, I guess you can, but I don't think it's right.
2. What's the difference between file sharing and taping copies of albums for buddies, like we all did when we were good innocent kids in the 70's and 80's?
The differences are obvious and huge. For one thing, the internet means everyone in the world with a computer is now your buddy. For a second, digital copies do not deteriorate over multiple generations. So we are basically living in a completely different landscape - one with shiny new CD's hanging from every tree. The question is, just because technology has improved to the point where we can share better, does that make it incumbent upon us to share less? I don't think so -- I think it is incumbent on record companies to fight for their product, coating CD's in bat jism or shooting anyone who downloads illegally, or whatever else they feel they can legally get away with.
3. Is any digital music-sharing, CD-burning practice more ethical than another?
Well, my wife's brother goes out and buys CD's, burns himself a copy, and then sells the official CD to a used CD place. So that way he basically gets artless CD's for about 2/3 of the regular price. Depending on what he does with the burned CD's, it is a noble move, almost too noble. At least some money goes into the hands of the bands (as well as the record companies), but he ends up paying probably 7 bucks for a CD with no artwork. Maybe he goes in on it with a couple of friends, which makes it slightly less noble but more practical. I can't see how a record company could rightfully hold a couple of kids responsible for making copies of CD's for each other (although I am sure they would try, and I am sure they do try). You could also use the Robin Hood thinking again and only download from artists who are financially secure -- I kind of like this one, although again, we have no idea how much money anybody really has. I think you can download Aerosmith with a clean conscience. Although, would you really want to? Perhaps we should start a website that lists bands that don't need the money: guiltfreedownloads.com? Another way to ease your mind might be to set up a personal rule that says, for instance, if you download three songs off an album, and you like 'em, you go buy the album. I know, who is actually gonna check themselves like that? Well, people do, actually. A guy I know at work says he will download songs to see if he likes something, then go buy it if he does. Perhaps that is an ideal model for how file-sharing should work. Of course, when we all get imprisoned for downloading, they won't distinguish between the ethical, considerate downloaders and the crazed hogs who just can't stop and would no longer buy a CD even if the proceeds went to charity. I guess you could also download songs and send cash directly to the artists, based on how many songs you downloaded and how much you liked 'em. That's pretty realistic.
So basically, I'm saying it's up to the user to make their own decision, based on what they think is right, what they think the consequences will be if they get caught, and how likely they think that is to happen. Personally, I think it is wrong to download songs for free -- but I love it so much I don't think I'll ever stop doing it until they pry this mouse from my cold, dead hand. How's that for taking a stand?
Please fell free to respond with your own thoughts...I will post the ones that mention Spuds McKenzie.
Times today I did the wrong thing: