To download or not too download? That is the question. It is one not only of moral relevance but also one of legal ramifications. Or is it?
When it comes to the controversial hot button issue of downloading/uploading music files, is it in fact illegal? Is it in fact wrong?
From a legal standpoint, depending on your geographical region, it can be either one. For example, just last month, a 30 year old Minnesota (US) woman was ordered to pay $222,000.00 to six different record companies for sharing 24 songs online thru a file sharing site. Also known as P2P (Peer to peer). Obviously, it is against the law in Minnesota but the punishment was rather odd when she apparently had over 1,700 songs on her computer. Why was she then only charged for 24 songs? Either it is illegal across the board or it is not.
Here in Canada the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) are also all up in arms (naturally) for what they claim are more then 1 billion illegal downloads per year in Canada. But wait just a minute...ILLEGAL?
In 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada RULED that downloading P2P networks (File sharing) was, in fact, PERFECTLY LEGAL for personal use The following year a Canadian Federal court judge (that's the Supreme court baby!) took on a similar stance when questioning whether uploading files is even illegal. In other words, as long as you are only downloading music for your own listening pleasure and not making 500 CD copies that you are then distributing and making money off of, then you are not committing a criminal act. Therefore, the CRIA errs when they suggest that what Canadians are doing is illegal when the reality is quite the opposite. If I download any music, in Canada, I am not breaking any laws, therefore how can it be illegal?
The second, and maybe more important question, is ...is it morally wrong? Some refer to it (P2P) as "stealing". I am honestly not convinced, at least at this point, that it is. Hear me out on this.
Back in the early 1980's "Everybody" borrowed records (remember those big vinyl disc's?) from their friend's, families, and neighbors to record them onto their tape cassettes so they could listen to them on their car stereos. I also remember sitting up for hours listening to my favorite Rock station with a cassette loaded in my boom box ready to hit that bright red record button every time one of my favorite songs came on. Our thinking back then was no different then it is today. Why go out and buy an entire record when you only wanted one or two songs. Someone was bound to have a copy you could "borrow".
It was a Flintstone version of file sharing with only one big difference. Aside from the physical exchange of music, as opposed to the online experience, no one was ever ONCE accused of stealing music. No recording industry ever ONCE filed a law suit against an individual. No law was ever ONCE mentioned or tabled in any legislative assembly in order to try an attempt to prevent people from sharing their record albums for other's to record. It was all understood that it was for personal use as well.
As it stands for me today, and as of this writing, I see no difference in today's online experience then from that of yesteryear.
Until next time...
In 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada RULED that downloading P2P networks (File sharing) was, in fact, PERFECTLY LEGAL for personal use The following year a Canadian Federal court judge (that's the Supreme court baby!) took on a similar stance when questioning whether uploading files is even illegal. In other words, as long as you are only downloading music for your own listening pleasure and not making 500 CD copies that you are then distributing and making money off of, then you are not committing a criminal act. Therefore, the CRIA errs when they suggest that what Canadians are doing is illegal when the reality is quite the opposite. If I download any music, in Canada, I am not breaking any laws, therefore how can it be illegal?
The second, and maybe more important question, is ...is it morally wrong? Some refer to it (P2P) as "stealing". I am honestly not convinced, at least at this point, that it is. Hear me out on this.
Back in the early 1980's "Everybody" borrowed records (remember those big vinyl disc's?) from their friend's, families, and neighbors to record them onto their tape cassettes so they could listen to them on their car stereos. I also remember sitting up for hours listening to my favorite Rock station with a cassette loaded in my boom box ready to hit that bright red record button every time one of my favorite songs came on. Our thinking back then was no different then it is today. Why go out and buy an entire record when you only wanted one or two songs. Someone was bound to have a copy you could "borrow".
It was a Flintstone version of file sharing with only one big difference. Aside from the physical exchange of music, as opposed to the online experience, no one was ever ONCE accused of stealing music. No recording industry ever ONCE filed a law suit against an individual. No law was ever ONCE mentioned or tabled in any legislative assembly in order to try an attempt to prevent people from sharing their record albums for other's to record. It was all understood that it was for personal use as well.
As it stands for me today, and as of this writing, I see no difference in today's online experience then from that of yesteryear.
Until next time...
12 comments:
TIO,
Life is complex, truth is simple.
Everything created by humans is complex, but truth is simple.
Truth - stealing is when you take something from someone that they wanted, or you take something that they wanted in exchange for something else of value.
The fact that the Internet enables us to take "electronic" things fast and/or free doesn't mean it isn't stealing.
In the hands of thieves, the Internet is like a master key to every home or the master password to every vault.
THIEVES suck!!! Don't be a theif!
Grump
I side with you on this one TIO. I remember back in my youth being told that home taping was killing music but a quick glance at the profits of Warner or EMI prove that despite my weekly Top 40 recordings off Radio 1 20 years ago, they are not doing too bad.
Must be something to do with the 90% of the costs they take. I have little sympathy for a company like Warner with a turnover of $3.502 Billion.
I think if the artist puts the songs on the internet with the availability of free downloads, then it is not stealing. But if someone other than the artist makes the song available as such, it is.
As to why it's becoming illegal, I think it must be because hard copy sales in stores are down and the artists and their agents aren't realizing the profits they wanted.
Taking music off the internet is just like shoplifting a pack of gum. It's small, so you think no one notices, or gets hurt by it.
I'm with Grump . . . Life is complex, truth is simple -- or maybe we should say art is complex, truth is simple.
Maybe I'm just being naive in thinking that the powers that be are trying to protect the rights of the artist and their work (maybe this is just about the big recording companies making a buck), but I think this all boils down to art appreciation. I think our culture has cheapened the act of making art and music. And I think most of us don’t value the amazing amount of art in the form of music that we have at our disposal. We tend to feel like it’s our right to possess whatever music we want. It’s as if we feel that once the artist has created their music and set it down in a recording that it belongs to all of us. But does it? I haven’t checked recently, but I believe our country’s copyright laws protect every creative work as soon as it is created – it automatically becomes the property of the creator. If that person owns it, don’t they have the right to control it and decide who should hear it? And if they sell it to a recording or distribution company in some form, then I guess that company now owns it and don’t they then have the same right?
Now I am both an artist and musician/songwriter so I definitely have strong opinions on this one. And I feel protective of artists and their work. I generally feel we are underappreciated and taken for granted. People who have not been involved in the act of creating generally have very little appreciation for just how much of yourself goes into your art. How much more would you value music if you suddenly didn’t have it? If we all woke up tomorrow and found that every musical creation had been taken back and was no longer available to us maybe we would begin to realize how much the music means to us. And so for me it’s not just a moral issue, but a quality of life thing.
Legally, ok I think fining someone $222,000 is pretty harsh. But I guess the point was to try to deter other people from doing the same thing. Frankly it would make me think twice before I illegally downloaded. And sure we all used to “borrow” records and make ourselves free recordings – but it was wrong then and still is – it’s just happening on a much larger scale now. I have friends that literally don’t ever purchase CDs anymore – everything is downloaded whether legally or not I guess I couldn’t say. But I feel sorry for these people. They have not given themselves the chance to experience the artists’ work as a whole. A CD doesn’t just consist of a single song as we all know. The artist has chosen a group of songs together as a whole work – often there is a message or emotion conveyed in the grouping that you are going to miss if you only listen to a single part of the creative work.
So the bottom line for me is – if you care at all about music or have any appreciation for the gifted person that made the music –BUY THE CD for crying out loud, don’t be so cheap!
First I want thank all of you for your input. What I truly appreciated about this subject is that it appears everyone not only had an opinion, but the vast difference's. Some of you were on one side, some on the other, and one right somewhere in the middle.
For the record, in writing this piece, I was not trying to make an attempt at defending any one position. I have analyzed the situation, sought out what the laws of the land say, and then did some soul searching. Anyone who knows me would also know that if I am in some sort of conflict morally, especially when it comes to my God, I want to act on it.
Sometimes in life when it comes to these gray areas I will in fact play devil's advocate in an attempt to try and dig out the actual bottom moral line. As a Christian, I always want to do what is just and what is right before Him. But I would also be lying to you all if I said that that is always the case. I am also a fallible human being who is very prone to falling on my ass now and again. If I was perfection then I would have no need for Christ. In fact, I am often open to correction. But I will closely analyze (not get defensive) the challenge. So without further a due, allow me to respond to some of your responses. And remember, I am digging at something here. Not necessarily trying to say to anyone one of you "I am right and you are wrong!"
Grump,
The fact that the Internet enables us to take "electronic" things fast and/or free doesn't mean it isn't stealing.
Does not mean that it is stealing either. Let's face it, the courts are not even consistent on this one. What appears to confuse it all the more is many of the artists are actually in favor of it. The see it as cost free publicity for when their big show comes to town. The record labels are the ones who seem to be having the issue.
If the music does in fact belong to the artist and they are not the ones taking issue then it really does not matter what the record labels say then does it?
THIEVES suck!!! Don't be a theif!
I appreciate that statement. At this point I am not convinced/convicted that I am. (BTW, I rarely download but I do admit to doing it) But I have to ask, have you ever loaned out a music CD to friend who really only borrowed it for one or two songs? He wasn't really interested in the whole CD? You did in fact buy the CD, you own it, and you actually have/own the distribution rights of that particular copy. The only thing you are prohibited from under law is making money off of it.
Lucy,
I like it when we agree :) A Lefty and a Righty (cheezy 80's tune Ebony and Ivory kicks in for sappy musicak background)
I remember back in my youth being told that home taping was killing music
My goodness we are old. I remember that too!
Karen,
I think if the artist puts the songs on the internet with the availability of free downloads, then it is not stealing.
Agreed. How can it be, although the record labels may still get their knickers in a knot.
But if someone other than the artist makes the song available as such, it is.
But herein lies that fine line. The moment the artist signs a deal and releases their recording it could be argued that they have in fact made it "available". They made want radio stations to play their music, they want MTV to play their video's. If they do not want their music available then copyright it so that no one can use it in any format without first contacting the artist. It will make for horrible publicity but if it's availability is limited by what some are trying to accomplish then there is a good chance no one is going to buy their product.
As to why it's becoming illegal, I think it must be because hard copy sales in stores are down and the artists and their agents aren't realizing the profits they wanted.
I would not solely attribute it to that. In speaking with a friend at church this week (who is opposed to downloading music) like them I would actually purchase the hardcover just for the cover contents and the whole package look over all. However, what record companies fail to realize is that MOST people do not rake in inflated salaries like the top brass do. When you consider the cost of making one single CD costs just under $1.25 (includes full color cover, pull outs, CD, and CD label) and their asking price can begin at just over $22.00 (average) most people cannot afford to spend that kind of money.
If the issue is as serious as they are making it out to be then charge $6.00 a CD across the board and watch downloading decrease and their sales increase. when a $100.00 only gets you 4 CD's, downloading os the more affordable option. And if it turns out to be legal, as is the case in Canada, then the record companies have to stop being stubborn and drop the prices.
Lorena,
You make some very impassioned arguments. Something to stew on. But, because I am viewing, thus far anyway, as no different then yesteryear, I had only one address to you regarding your statement:
And sure we all used to “borrow” records and make ourselves free recordings – but it was wrong then and still is –
But it wasn't wrong then. What I mean by that is, the artists took no issue with it, the record companies were not filing lawsuits against the citizen's, I do not recall ever hearing of anyone, and I mean not one, individual ever making a moral issue of the matter, and therefore if by the actions (or lack of) by the "owners"(artists) themselves was a non issue for them, the record labels, and the courts then I would suggest that it was not wrong back then. If we are looking at it today, only on a larger scale, then what exactly is the difference or is there one?
Well said, lorena.
TIO,
Don't get confused by the complexity... the medium doesn't change stealing into not stealing and the law is more a reflection of economics than right or wrong...
Was the music you acquired meant to be free by the owner?
Grump
Grump,
I would appreciate your answer to some of the question's I posed before answering yours. But I cannot help responding to your last question:
Was the music you acquired meant to be free by the owner?
Let's take it a step further backward into time. Before the age of musical recording many artists, like today, wrote their music out on sheets. When their song turned out to gain popularity other talents would grab on too it and play it in their own regions.
Now as I understand it, the muscians who wrote the songs were never paid out any royalities. The only costs involved for other muscians to play another muscians music were to cover the costs of the paper to reproduce it. And of course over time they got passed on over and over again with out the original artist seeing any profit from it except tha his talents would gain noteriety and respect among his peers and listeners.
IF in fact stealing is stealing is stealing then if we gauge by that model from the begining that maybe music was never meant to be an economical commodity in the first place but a gift to be shared for all.
I wanna comment! (even though I'm a little late and the debate seems to be over...)
I don't download music for the simple fact that I know many musicians and I know how much work they went into making that album. I feel that I should contribute SOMETHING to them for their efforts. I've always been that way though - I'll buy an album because I only want one or two songs, I've never been one to tape songs off the radio.
I don't see it as stealing necessarily because you're right, where do we draw the line between borrowing music, giving someone hand me down clothing, passing on a book that we loved, etc... For me, it's a matter of respect to the artists that created the music.
Now, it's not to say I don't download - my typical method is to download one or two songs from an album that I've heard was good, and if I like those songs, then I go buy them. I also havn't bought a physical cd in eons, I use itunes.
That's my two cents. :)
Also, I have a new blog (again) but it's a secret... let me know if you want my address and I'll send it to you.
Hi there TIO, Glad to meet ya here, and I very much enjoy your blog.
I fully admit that I download the majority of my music. I do so mostly from itunes, so I do indeed pay a small fee to add this music to my library.
I do want to comment on some of the thing Lorena mentioned. I do not think that people who download music miss out on the artists work as a whole. I think in honesty, my appreciation of music and songwriting has if anything broadened as a result of the easy availability of music online.
I have searched out new artists and indie songwriters and enjoyed their music far before it has reached the radio level. My mind has been opened to new genres of music I never would have purchased on a risk of not liking it at all.
As for being cheap, I do agree that it is a cost saving measure for most when you choose to download music. I do not believe however that it makes a person cheap. I can download a song for .99 cents with itunes, or similar pay as you go type mp3 download sites. This allows me to spend what I would have spent on one CD on many different styles and songs that I thouroughly enjoy. To me, that is not cheap, it is smart.
As for the file sharing aspect of downloading (without permission) I do my share of that too. Television shows mostly, but these are now more and more uploaded by the stations themselves and as of now is not illegal.
I tend to side with TIO on this, I was a teenager who often swapped/taped cassettes and radio top 40 countdowns and such. I still do not think that was wrong, so I don't see much of a difference in this case.
To each their own as far as I am concerned. I for one am thrilled that there are sites like itunes and puretracks so that I can continue to build my very vast music library :)
Tio
I really don't have much further comment on the morality of the matter. I don't download, but I have about a half dozen songs on my computer that friends have sent to me that they thought I'd like. I don't have an ipod or an mp3 player. For my birthday, I bought a new turntable for my sound system (my son had hocked my old one in his drug days)and the latest additions to my music collection have actually been vinyl. My younger son found albums he knew we'd both like at a retro store near his college.
I like having the liner notes and lyrics and the case to keep the record/cd in. Just too old school, I guess.
I don't remember ever taping off the radio, and didn't record friend's albums either. I frequently bought an album for just one song and ended up enjoying the total work.
In the end, I agree with grump. It wasn't meant to be free, so it shouldn't just be taken.
TIO,
I didn’t answer the questions because you asked too many of them.
The fact that the Internet enables us to take "electronic" things fast and/or free doesn't mean it isn't stealing.
Does not mean that it is stealing either.
(((We agree. Some things are intended to be free, or else the owner just doesn’t care.)))
Let's face it, the courts are not even consistent on this one.
(((Now you are talking about law versus what is right. There is that complexity thing I was talking about.)))
What appears to confuse it all the more is many of the artists are actually in favor of it. They see it as cost free publicity for when their big show comes to town. The record labels are the ones who seem to be having the issue.
(((The artists aren’t the only ones with an interest in this. In this case the record label – which has expended their capital for a return their investment – which seems reasonable. If the artist engaged the record label then they have a contract with the record label, eh? Doesn’t that mean they wanted something from the record label? Here we go with the complexity again. The record label appears to have an interest in this and they want to be compensated.)))
If the music does in fact belong to the artist and they are not the ones taking issue then it really does not matter what the record labels say then does it?
(((I think I showed that the record label does have a valid interest.)))
THIEVES suck!!! Don't be a theif!
I appreciate that statement. At this point I am not convinced/convicted that I am. (BTW, I rarely download but I do admit to doing it)
(((I didn’t call you a thief or accuse you. My judgment is made irrelevant by my own sins.)))
But I have to ask, have you ever loaned out a music CD to friend who really only borrowed it for one or two songs? He wasn't really interested in the whole CD? You did in fact buy the CD, you own it, and you actually have/own the distribution rights of that particular copy.
(((Actually, I haven’t loaned out CD’s but probably only because I’m not a music person – I prefer to listen to nature. This week my wife and I bought two copies of Pirates of the Caribbean 3, and two copies of Live Free Die Hard so that each of our teens will get their own copy and won’t have to share. BTW - The computer I’m using to write this response has a DVD burner and all the software needed to make copies.)))
The only thing you are prohibited from under law is making money off of it.
(((Ahhh, complexity raises its ugly head again. You missed my point totally. I don’t care if the law says it is okay. The law allowed slavery. The law allows the death penalty. The law allows abortions of convenience.)))
Now that I’ve answered all the questions, how does it change the opinions I posted? The artist isn’t the only entity with a stake in this. Valid stakeholders want valid compensation. Is taking what they own without providing compensation right or not?
TIO, if someone is walking thru the woods and comes across a fly rod, and by looking at the scene they can tell it has been there for quite a while (moss has grown on it and vines have entwined it). Is it okay for them to take the rod as theirs? If they do, is it stealing? If next season someone sees them with it and says “hey that’s my rod” was it stealing then? Is leaving something unattended (what if it was done by accident, or what if they intended to use next fishing season, or what if an emergency forced them to leave it) enough to justify change in ownership?
Personally, if I see something unattended that doesn’t belong to me, I don’t assume it is mine for the taking…
See why I picked the label “Grump”?
Post a Comment