|
|
File Sharing and the Music IndustryJust Because We Can Download Music, Does It Mean We Should?
File sharing has become a major part of the 21st Century. We download music because it’s free, it convenient, and sometimes simply because it’s our only way to get music. But should we download music? The Record Companies insist it hurts them, the artist and the entire music industry. Downloaders insist that it is a human right to share information and entertainment, and that published information cannot be “ownedâ€. Artist’s themselves are divided over the issue, with some bands (such as Metallica) hating the very idea, while others, such as MC Lars, working to protect people who had downloaded their songs. It is an ethical dilemma few people worry about in their day-to-day life.
A Brief Explanation of How File Sharing Works
File sharing is a simple process to understand. Say 5 users own a p2p program (p2p means Peer to Peer). User 1 has a song that he wants to share with the others. He “uploads†it to the system. User 2 sees this, and wants the song. He downloads the song, and it takes a little while. User 2 uploads it as well. Now two users are uploading the same song. User 3 wants the song. He downloads it by downloading parts from User 1 and parts from User 2, speeding it up. User 3 then uploads the song. User 4 wants the song, he downloads it from Users 1,2,3… and so on. This brings up an interesting question – who are the people who use these programs?
According to a study called “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales – An Empirical Analysisâ€, there are (roughly) two groups of people who download – those who have replaced buying music with downloading, and those who basically ‘try before they buyâ€, if they like music they download, they will buy it. Usually the “free-loaders†are young, don’t care about the ethics of downloading, and think others think the same. The “try-buys†are usually older, worry about the ethics and illegality of downloading, and don’t really like telling people, for fear they’ll get caught.
There are plenty of arguments on the internet for and against downloading music. Some of these arguments fall a little flat.
Bad “Forâ Arguments
“Theyâ™re rich anywayâ€
Most downloaders think that it is right to download music either because the artist is mega-rich anyway, or the middleman that distributes the music is mega-rich anyway, and does not “deserve†their money. Most of the time, people conjure up images of the rich businessman in a suit, counting his money and laughing at the little guy. However, they forget about the other “little guyâ€. Say 10,000 people work in a factory that makes CDs. If enough people download enough music, those 10,000 people will be out of job. You’re “punishingâ those ten thousand people for one person’s “crime†of overpricing music.
“It’s not stealingâ€
This is probably the most common argument for downloading music. The artist still has a copy of the music, you just happened to get one for free, so what does it matter? However, I feel that this argument is pointless and proves nothing. Whatever you are doing, it can still be wrong. Besides, as Jack Marshall states in his Open Letter to a File Sharer, you have stolen something. You’ve stolen what the artist should’ve gotten when you got the music.
Bad “Against†Arguments
“It will kill off the industryâ€
The argument that music sharing will destroy the music industry may be unfounded, according to history. When the VCRs were first distributed, Universal Studios tried to stop them being sold, claiming that it would kill off the industry – people would tape movies from television, and share them with friends. Today, it turns out Universal was half right – People are taping movies from television, and even sharing them with friends, yet the movie industry has survived. Although, it is far easier to share music than to share VHS tapes.
“Things are made illegal for a reasonâ€
This is true. However, some laws have nothing to do with today’s thinking. For example, in Australia it is still required by law that a bar must stable, feed and water a patron’s horse, despite the fact that very few people still travel by horse around cities. Laws, technology, and values are not currently in sync, and probably won’t be for some time.
I cannot decide how I feel about this subject. I have two different opinions of this, and can’t decide between the two.
I feel that file sharing is unethical when you only file-share and never pay for the music. Even if you do it to stick it to the “manâ, you are hurting far more than you think. Anyway, two wrongs don’t make a right.
But I also feel we are on the brink of a new information age. Music, movies, video games… these won’t be considered material objects. The information will become free, and all of the money will be in what was considered “side money†before. Instead of using concerts to sell music, they will use music to sell concerts. Instead of selling CDs with music on them, they might sell CDs with the band’s image printed on them (for custom mixes). Instead of saying “Music downloads are wrong, because we lose money,†they would be saying “Download the music, then buy all this other stuff to support your band!†and appeal to the Samplers everywhere. Because according to the Oberholzer and Strumpf study, Samplers are the only thing keeping the music industry afloat. There could be unlimited potential if the music industry could see it.
So, in conclusion, I guess I am saying that while being a freeloader and downloading is wrong, it could lead to fantastic new possibilities in the world. Unfortunately, downloaders seem to be too lazy to stop, and record companies are too short-sighted to solve the problem. The problem will either grow until free-loaders overtake samplers and artists go bankrupt, or someone figures out the solution and has the power to put it in place.
Used www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000574.html to understand the study
|
|
Watch
Add Friend
Invite to Group
