We've all been there, we've all done it: we've all used Pandora radio for streaming. And when using it, I never put much thought into how much the musician was being paid for this work. Turns out, it's not a lot. So is it ethical to stream this music? Is it ever ethical to illegally download or fileshare music? In the end, the question isn't really about how ethical it is to download or file share, it's about how ethical it is to persecute people for doing so.
For starters, many record companies (and musicians) hold this belief that if someone is sharing/streaming their music, they lose out on sales. However, this is a misconception in many ways. Most importantly, it is a misconception that the musicians would lose out on a lot of money, since iTunes only pays musicians about ten cents per download anyway, and popular streaming services like Spotify and Pandora only pay about fifty cents. (Richmond).
So it's not like there's really a loss of money. But say a musician feels spurned and wants to sue anyway. In today's time, while legally within their bounds, it is not the smartest decision to make. Not only is it not smart, it is unethical. When musicians who are making millions begin suing children over downloading or streaming their music for free, they make enemies. People dislike them, and are less likely to want to purchase their music.
But it really hurts the "little guy". People have to pay hundreds of thousands in reparations, money they don't have to begin with (hey, maybe that's why they were streaming the music instead of downloading it!). It harms the person committing the crime more than the person the crime was committed against, which makes this persecution unethical.
But aside from the law itself being unethical, it's completely illogical. For a musician making hardly anything from iTunes sales (which is how most of the songs are being downloaded now), you would think he would understand someone not purchasing their new album, choosing instead to stream it and then instead spend the money on merchandise or going to a concert, where in the end the musician will make more money.
Many people nowadays also want to preview the music they're going to buy. This doesn't mean one-minute segments, but the entire song, the entire album. Consumers now want to know what they're getting into and make sure they're spending their money correctly. So if streaming can lead to record sales, what's the problem with it? Looking at you, Taylor Swift.
Moreover, is it ethical for record companies and musicians to restrict how their music can be used? Is it ethical to say that the music can only be bought, and not used in projects? That in order to put a song someone might not even like as a background for a YouTube video, he has to go out and buy it? If there's creative commons licensing for books and movies, shouldn't there be for songs as well? And if someone has purchased the song in question, shouldn't he be allowed to use it however he pleases, even if that might be in a video? The music industry is far behind in the times, because using music like this, which many videos have had their sound stripped for doing, is what often times leads someone to discover a new artist and in turn download their music or pay to go to a concert.
Is it really ethical for large record companies to take advantage of individuals for sharing a musician's content? It does more harm than good, and no matter how many people are made examples of, this behavior isn't going to change. Downloading songs for free is no longer seen as stealing...it's sharing. Just like you used to go in halfsies for that new Donny Osmond CD, now you go halfsies on a virtual CD. This is one of those cultural shifts, and if the major record companies/musicians don't get with the times, all they're going to do is lose customers and fanbases.
No comments:
Post a Comment