Stop Music Theft

Introduction

Illegal file sharing or downloading happens first and foremost because it can. It's just so damn simple—why not do it (the perpetrators say). There are obliging co-conspirators who are more than happy to make the mp3s they bought or stole or the tracks they ripped from CDs and DVDS available to you. And there are web site operators laughing all the way to the bank, providing links to these tracks or the actual tracks themselves. Of course, it's all illegal, but enforcement is difficult and rare relative to the millions upon millions of thefts taking place.

The Excuses

We have encountered any number of "rationales" for why file sharing or downloading (illegally) is not stealing, or if it is stealing, it's perfectly justified. (Note: the following is written from the point of view of the "downloaders.")

1. Record companies screw artists and the rest of us record buying public, so it's perfectly justifiable payback for us to steal from them.
2. The record companies put out crap these days. It's not anywhere near as good as it used to be, so I'm justified in stealing what I do like.
3. CDs and DVDs of my favorite stuff from the past (like TV series) are priced too high in stores by the labels and studios, so I am justified in downloading it for free. If they priced it "fairly," I'd buy it.
4. If I own a CD or DVD I legally bought, it's mine to do with what I want. I can "rip" it to my own computer(s) for my own use. I can have some friends over and share it with them by playing it on my CD or DVD player and letting them listen/watch. So, why can't I make them copies too or let them copy it via file sharing? A more narrow definition of this is that I should at least be able to trade it to somebody for a track they have or sell it to somebody else (the "file sharing" argument).
5. Maybe it's stealing, but if I listen to a song and like it, I might buy the artist's work or tell somebody else about how great the artist is and they will buy the artists work too. So, I am really doing the artist a favor by downloading their work—it's not really stealing.
6. I may download a song or movie, but I don't listen to/watch it that much or maybe at all, so it's really not stealing.
7. The RIAA and MPAA and the industries they represent have been clumsy, heavy-handed, and ineffectual in dealing with file sharing, so I am justified in stealing files. The major labels in particular have been clueless as the internet and technological change obsoleted their business model, so it's their tough luck. The new model is simply that everything is free as it should be on a free internet.

It is amazing to us, but even some artists support illegal downloading¹.

The Truth & The Law

What's wrong with these arguments? Let's take them in the same order. (Note: The following responses are written as if they were to the illegal downloaders.)

1. There are at least two really compelling reasons that this argument is total BS.
   • Your basic rationale here is that record companies screw artists because they don't pay them enough. Well, by stealing the artists' music, you are taking ALL of the artists' money. So, who's the bigger creep—you or the record companies? As to record companies screwing you, see Point 3.
   • Who is a "record company"? Is it the "evil" CEO who drives around in limos and makes an eight-figure salary? Or is it the tens of thousands of other people that used to have jobs at labels making five- and low six-figure basic livings. You know, the secretaries, receptionists, etc. What about all the people that don't work at labels, but who have no jobs now because of intellectual property theft; you know, the songwriters, publishers, musicians, recording engineers, publicists, managers, etc. and the whole support staff that used to work with them.
2. Quality costs money. So, every time you illegally download a file, YOU my friend are contributing to the very mediocrity you rail against. Perhaps the reason that the quality level was "better" in "the old days"² is that the labels had huge amounts of money to spend on producing quality and they spent it. Now, labels are under so much financial pressure they have to cut costs in every way. This has had a multiplicity of bad effects including:
   • Bankruptcies or closings or sales to majors of many indie labels.
   • Mergers of majors ( depending on when you start counting): 7 major labels down to 4.
   • Far fewer artist signings, so less diversity of music and even musical genres.
   • Labels are more risk averse in signings too so they are playing it safe and signing artists that are "just like" the currently successful artists. Put another way, they are less likely to take a chance on the very different artists that might in fact be the breakthrough artists (like Kurt Cobain (Grunge) or even Elvis Presley who merged country, blues and so-called "race" music into rock and roll).
   • Less spent to record and engineer albums.
   • Pressure on artists to write their own material as it may be the biggest paycheck they get as album sales are so woeful. (And a lot of artists really are better artists than writers.)
   • The closing of many publishing companies and the dispersal of their writers into non-music fields resulting in a reduction in the diversity and quality of the songs available to be recorded.
   • Far less money spent on advertising and promotion which also results in fewer album sales—it's a vicious cycle—the worse things get, the worse things get!!!
   • Some movies these day cost $200 million to make. Today's elaborate special effects (think "Avatar") take big budgets. Again—quality takes money. The movie industry is facing the same fate as the music industry and if it goes that way, 10 years from now, we may all be bemoaning the "lousy" movies a broke Hollywood or Bollywood is making as legions of pimple-faced teenagers use the excuse of poor quality to bankrupt the movie industry.
3. It's hard to know how to even respond to this one as it's so ridiculous. By this logic, I am entitled to steal a Mercedes because I think they are too expensive.
4. Of all of the rationales for stealing intellectual property, this one seems the most reasonable. But ultimately, it holds no more water than the rest. Let's work through all of these related questions.
   • It certainly seems like you should be able to make copies for your own personal use and in some cases, you can. With regard to CDs, the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") won't go on record saying copying a CD for one's own use is "legal." They do say "burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as [t]he copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own [and] [t]he copy is just for your personal use"³.
   • There is considerable confusion in this area because of an error made by the Washington Post in a story they did in Dec. 2007. The Post gave the impression from their reporting that the RIAA was suing an individual for ripping songs to his computer solely for his own use. What the RIAA was actually suing over was the ripping of songs to a "shared folder" on the individual's computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network. (see "Correction to This Article" preceding the story footnoted below⁴).
   • In the US and many other countries, you may copy DVDs for your own use except if they are encrypted with a copy protection. This may seem "unfair," but it's the law⁵.
   • You of course may also play a CD or DVD for friends if it is for a non-commercial purpose.
   • It does seem that if you buy a CD or DVD, you should be able to sell it or trade it (one time) and in fact, you can⁶.
   • But, the right to a one-time sale, does not give you the right to sell or trade the "file" (mp3 or compressed video file) multiple times as is the case if you participate in file sharing services or BitTorrenting.
5. While some studies have concluded that illegal downloading doesn't suppress music sales (but in fact, may increase them)⁷, that is no excuse for theft. It is the intellectual property owner's right and that of his business associates like the labels to decide how his/her music is to be marketed. While we question the validity of these "studies," that's really irrelevant. Whether they are right or wrong, in what way do illegal downnloaders acquire a "right" to steal because of their opinions about marketing issues?
6. If you steal a car and park it in your garage and never drive it again, guess what, you still just committed grand larceny and the cops aren't really going to care whether you ever drove the car or not. Same holds for the theft of intellectual property.
7. This argument is again nothing more than pure rationalization for illegal actions. By the same reasoning, one could rationalize anything. You're ineffective, I'll shoot you. You're stupid, I'll steal your car. Air is free, so everything is free.