Illegally Downloading Music: Is It Worth It?

1

Illegally Downloading Music: Is It Worth It?

Illegally Downloading Music: Is It Worth It?

Hayley Turner

Virginia Commonwealth University

Abstract

This paper questions the ethics of illegally downloading music. Ultimately, it is argued that it is unethical. Background is given as to how the pirating of sound recordings began, and the traditional belief that art, in this case music, occupations are looked down upon compared to more traditional and practical ones, such as doctors and engineers. The position that downloading music illegally is unethical is defended through the frameworks of justice and fairness, rights, virtue, and “extra slack” – a branch of the rights approach. The opposite side is acknowledged, but their argument is invalidated.

Music is a universal language. It is part of everyone’s lives and has some sort of impact, whether it be big or small. In music, there is understanding, compassion, and unity. It has the ability to make the rawest emotions come to life, and communicate those feelings in a way regularly speaking just cannot. Trying to imagine a world without it is nearly impossible. Musicians pour their souls into their work, but unfortunately they are not always rewarded adequately.

Easily illegally downloading music began in 1999 when Shawn Fanning created a file sharing service called “Napster.” Before then, people had to browse through “hundreds of thousands” of websites to find legitimate pages, ones without registration requirements or viruses planted, where they could access free music. This community eventually grew to over 70 million “registered music collectors” (Bhutani, 2008). That community just consisted of Napster. Now, there are an endless number of sites available for this sole purpose, leading to an even larger community. While this easy access to music worldwide seems great, it is hard to ignore how it hurts musicians. Because people have access to their work at no cost, there is less motivation to purchase it. It is understandable that not everyone can afford to pay for music, but the fact is that artists are losing money and it is not ethicalthat they must suffer as a result.

The idea that artistic work is “lesser” than STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) work had been instilled in society for years. Children grow up with the notion that work in the STEM field is more fulfilling and practical than any artistic occupation. A surgeon or an engineer is held higher up in the community as opposed to a painter, or in this specific case a musician. The response to stealing an engineer’s blueprints for a project is pure outrage, while people barely bat an eye at the act of stealing a song from a musician. The creation of sites like Napster have only contributed to the cultural numbness of this action.

However, a scholarly journal proves that creativity in the classroom helps keep students “focused, engaged and in attendance.” At the Methodist Children’s Home School in Texas, most students had not been successful academically or interpersonally in their previous environments. In an attempt to change this, the instructors asked their students to do things such as “rewrite and perform a classic play in modern idiom” or “compose the Bill of Rights into a rap song.” When the academics were turned into creative activities, the students thrived. When the 8th graders took the U.S. History Texas state assessment, passing scores were “over 85 percent” as opposed to the state-wide performance of “70 percent” for at-risk students. (Boldt et al., 2006). Creativity can be placed in every academic space, making it just as valuable as any academically-driven occupation. Maybe even more so, given its versatility. Because of this, it is unfair to hold the belief that artists deserve little to no payment for their work, which is what is being exercised when music is stolen.

When people get a job, there is an expectation that they will be paid for the work they do. In our capitalist society, it is essential to earn money. It is impossible to survive without an income. When musicians dedicate their lives to creating artistic content, that is their job. How come it has become normal to swindle them of their rightly deserved income?Using the lens of the justice and fairness approach, they have the right to be treated just like everyone else and to be paid and credited for the work they produce. Their work is just as worthy as a lawyer working a case or a janitor. They deserve fair compensation.

The justice and fairness ethical approach says that each person should be given what they deserve. That is not to be mixed up with equality. Justice and fairness is defined by Aristotle as “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Velasquez et al., 2014). If someone enjoys their music, they should have to pay for the content that artist has created. They worked incredibly hard to write, perform, produce, and market that record. It is only fair that they are paid for that. A person does not go to a farmer’s market to get produce and expect to receive it for free. The seller worked hard to grow that food and make sure it is fresh when sold. There is value in buying fresh produce and people are willing to pay for the time and energy the farmer put toward it. They might not be paid too much, but they are paid what they deserve. That is all that musicians ask for when they put their art, their souls, out into the world. Downloading their music illegally is completely unfair. There is no justice in that, and thus it is unethical.

Artists are not the only ones affected by music piracy. In a study conducted by the Institute for Policy Innovation, the U.S. economy has lost 71,060 jobs, 46,114 at the production level for sound recordings and 24,946 at the U.S. retail level, and $2.7 billion in earning annually solely because of sound recording piracy (Siwek, 2007). In our society, people need to earn a sufficient income to survive. Their way of survival has been ripped away from them due to illegal downloads. According to the rights approach, people are ethically entitled to have the capability to “secure a minimum level of well-being” (Velasquez et al., 2014). That includes having the opportunity to a job. Those people in the industry worked hard to have that position, and it is not right that they had that taken away due to people stealing. What if some people requested the service of a lawyer and then they decided to do the unthinkable and not pay them for their work? The lawyer working the case would be affected, and there is a good chance that the firm they would work for would take an economic hit which would result in laying some employees off. That scenario sounds unconscionable, but in fact that is the exact same thing that is happening to those who work for the sound recording industry. They deserve the right to a job, to live well and maintain a sustainable lifestyle.

In our society, theft is considered unacceptable. It is not even the fact that it is against the law, it is the action itself. Theft requires taking someone’s personal property from them. Whether it was given to them or they earned it themselves, it is theirs and there is something about that that gives people a sick feeling in their stomachs and their hearts. It makes them feel guilty. Stealing is an action that displays bad character, which goes against the virtue approach. Virtues that are lost when a person pirates music are honesty, integrity, fairness and self-control. When tying it into ethics, it is all about allowing our humanity to fully develop and pondering “what kind of person we should be” (Velasquez et al., 1988). Using this approach, it is clear that it is ethically wrong to illegally download music.

Most people strive to be the best person they can possibly be. Obviously, everyone is human, which means nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes and make wrong decisions sometimes, but the decision to steal other’s music is a conscious one that many feel is justifiable. In a poll conducted by debate.org, 57% of people answered that it was not wrong to download music without permission. The justifications ranged from the fact that artists do public performances so there is no need to pay for their work, to the music is a form of “expression” and therefore should be free (Is Downloading Music, 2013). However, this is someone’s hard work and taking that without permission and giving the proper compensation is outrageous and unjustifiable. It is dishonest to do this and shows a real lack of self-control. If someone wants to buy a phone, they are going to save up for it, not break into a store and steal one or just steal from someone else in general. If a person cannot afford to buy the music, they should save up or use legal and free platforms such as YouTube or the regular version of Spotify. They are set up for a reason, and they do not carry any viruses. When downloading music from illegal sources, the music is generally obtained from “disreputable sources.” Because of this, hackers and identity thieves are able to target people before they have even begun downloading the songs (Administrator, 2014).Using legal sources ends up being more beneficial to users in terms of safety and security. A person is losing money because of unnecessary and risky theft, how can someone look in the mirror and be okay with contributing to that?

While illegally downloading music may not be principled, it is clear that there are still people buying it. As of 2014, the worldwide revenue generated by the music business was almost $15 billion (Music Album Sales, 2016). That is a huge amount of money, so not spending $15 on an album or $1.29 on a song off iTunes will not even make a dent in that profit. Individually, there will be no impact. It is hard to disagree with that.

It is true, pirating one song or album will not make much of a difference. Even downloading a couple of hundred songs barely makes a dent in that income. However, that is only true if a few people are thinking that way. Those few turn into hundreds, then thousands, then millions. The “extra slack” approach addresses the question of “what if everyone did that?” People acknowledge that it is illegal, but feel that they are an exception to the rule (Everybody Test, 2016). Truth be told, album sales are down 84% over three and a half decades, from the 1980s to the 2010s (Powell-Morse, 2015). Clearly, more than just a few people believe they are the exception to the rule and it is making a significant dent in that revenue.

Imagine this: everyone has decided that they no longer want to pay taxes. They feel that they are overrated and cutting too much into their income. That money can be put toward other things they desire and feel they deserve. This impact is not immediate. Then, suddenly, nothing can be paid for. Damaged roads would cease to operate and the public school system would be obliterated. The economy and the whole structure of the world would collapse, all because people did not want to pay their taxes. If everyone decided they no longer wanted to pay for music, then the whole music industry would collapse. There would be no such thing, and there would be nothing to illegally download. It would also hurt the economy immensely. It is not okay to exclude yourself from the majority. Everyone is set to the same rule, and everyone needs to abide by it.

Music is a beautiful art form. It holds an experience like no other, and no one should be deprived of that. However, blatantly stealing from artist and believing that there is nothing wrong with that is completely false and unethical. Hard work always deserves compensation, whether it be a farmer selling food, a lawyer offering legal advice to a client, or a musician creating music. Infringing on a person’s livelihood is unacceptable.

References

Administrator, S. (2014, March 24). Nothing is Free: The Dangers of Downloading Free Content. Retrieved December 06, 2016, from

Bhutani, A. (2008, November 04). The Ease of Downloading. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

Boldt, R. W., & Catherine, B. (2006). Creative Arts: Strengthening Academics and Building Community with Students At-Risk. Reclaiming Children and Youth,14(4). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from

Everybody Test. (2016). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from

Is Downloading Music Without Permission Wrong? (2013, May). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from

Music Album Sales in the United States From 2007 to 2015 (in millions units). (2016). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from

Powell-Morse, A. (2015, June 30). Does The Death Of Album Revenue Spell The End For Rock Stars As We Know Them? Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

Siwek, S. (2007, August). The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., J., S., & Meyer, M. J. (1988, January 1). Ethics and Virtue. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J.., & Meyer, M. J. (2014, August 1). Justice and Fairness. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (2014, August 8). Rights. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from