Amethyst Gefre, Senior
Stillwater Area High School
An iPod Nano can hold anywhere from 1000 to 2000 songs. If it can be assumed that most teenagers have about 700 songs on their iPod, and each song costs $0.99, then each of those individuals would have to spend $693 to satisfy their musical appetite. That’s a high price to pay, especially when artists are constantly churning out new hits and new bands are emerging onto the musical scene every day. Of course, there are always ways of getting something without paying. Who could resist downloading a couple free songs when there is no fear that the government will track you down and arrest you for stealing? Besides, websites give credit by listing what artist created what song, so as long as there is still name recognition, it can’t be that bad, right?
It’s easy to make justifications. The websites that you get free downloads from make excuses, too. Take airmp3.net for example. In their disclaimer, they encourage users to buy music after sampling it online and they “promote the enjoyment of streaming media”. This is illogical and silly jargon. If an internet user sees a full, free, downloadable song, and not just a “sampling” of a song, would they really feel like purchasing the song when they could get it in one click without paying a cent? In addition to search engines for free mp3 downloads, there are also methods of taking music videos posted on YouTube and putting them on your iPod. Keepvid.com is one website that makes this possible. The user simply pastes the URL of the website into the box and presses the download button. Moreover, there are methods of file-sharing such as the use of torrents that enable users to download unlimited amount of free songs. None of this costs a single penny, which is why many people take advantage of such websites. While their iPod fill with songs, their wallets can stay full as well.
These things raise the ethical issue of whether or not free downloads connote stealing. Artists sign deals with record companies, who then in turn sign deals with companies like Apple, for their songs and music videos to be sold to the public. If people are getting the songs without buying them, and they are getting them from sources that are not directly sponsored by the artists themselves, then how could this not be stealing? To fully explore the question of whether or not free downloads are ethical, the Rotary International Four-Way Test will be used.
The first question asks if the situation is truthful. It can be said that there is some effort in displaying truth because file-sharing and free mp3 websites do not claim the songs as their own. The artist is listed alongside the songs that they created, and websites do not claim that they had any part in the making of the song. However, when it comes to parents asking how their child has 400 songs on their iPod when the parent only bought them a $30 gift card, it is likely that the child will not want to tell them the truth about how they got the songs, for fear that the parent will ask “Is that legal?” This fear in some kids may confirm that free downloads are indeed unethical. If kids are not comfortable to admit their methods of acquiring music, it is probably because there is a general mindset and set of principles that people believe that music should be purchased. Thus, not purchasing the music goes against this common belief, making it seem immoral.
The second question of the Four-Way Test asks if the situation is fair to all concerned. It is obvious to see that it is not. The musicians whose music is being posted and shared cannot make the profit they desire if their works are being distributed free of charge. Not only is it free, but the artists do not have a say as to whether they want their music to become available in this way. It is true that many great musicians do what they do simply for the love of music, and not for money. Yet if enough people are using alternative methods of obtaining music, that artist will lose quite a lot of revenue, and some musicians might not feel that it is worth their time to try and sell music if people will just get it for free somewhere on the internet.
The third question asks if the situation will build goodwill and improve relationships. Free downloads do neither. Musicians lose faith and fondness of fans knowing that their fans are not loyal enough to purchase their music. The artists may feel letdown and unmotivated to continue their work knowing that they will have little profit because of the exponentially growing sources of their free music. This in turn will backfire on the fans because if the artists are unwilling to work, then they will not be inspired to create new music.
The fourth and final question asks if the situation is beneficial to all concerned. As previously discussed, it is not beneficial to artists because they don’t earn as much and they lose respect for their fans. From an economic stand point, free downloads are detrimental because they damage the entire music business. Artists, recording companies, the iTunes store and others like it will all suffer huge losses if more and more people choose not to buy the music. Even the people that are getting the free music suffer too. The attitude that says “I can just get it elsewhere without paying” is a dangerous one because people start to apply it to other areas of life too. They become encouraged to take short-cuts in life, which may lead to other unethical behavior such as lying to avoid getting a speeding ticket, padding a résumé to improve chances of being hired, and cutting corners on quality-control in business situations. These things will eventually catch up to them. They will get caught by a boss at work or a friend will see their behavior and will not be pleased.
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that free downloads are not ethical. They are unfair to artists, damage relationships between artists and fans, and are not beneficial to all concerned. When you think about it, paying $0.99 for a song is not so bad after all.
