The Ethics Of Downloading Music

3 Pages 812 Words

THE ETHICS OF DOWNLOADING MUSIC


If I had a CD burner and decided to burn a few songs for some friends, all of whom live within an hour or so away by car, would I remember to stop and consider the ethical implications of what I'm doing? Probably not.

So imagine the ease of exchanging some favourite tunes, stored as high-quality and quick-to-transmit MP3s on your computer, with people half-way across the globe. What are the ethical implications there?

By law, downloading a digital song violates the intellectual property rights of the artist, or in most cases, of the record companies who contracted those rights from the artist. Swapping music leaves artists with little compensation for the reproduction of their work, other than a sense that their songs are providing pleasure and perhaps inspiration to music lovers.


The players

Napster, in 1999, was the first company to popularize peer-to-peer trading of music files. By offering a software application that allowed users to download MP3s directly from one another's computers, Napster became a phenomenon attracting over 50 million users to its music-loving community.

But this phenomenon raised protests from many in the music industry. The Recording Industry Association of America filed suit against Napster in December 1999. Heavy metal group Metallica followed with their own suit in April 2000.

Both RIAA and Metallica argued that Napster's software enabled people to download copyrighted work without permission, encouraging music piracy. The RIAA claimed that Napster members making copies of top-selling songs would avoid payment of royalties, which would result in revenue losses for the record industry.

Some artists who originally opposed the idea of Napster found themselves changing their position on online music distribution. For example, Matt Johnson from the music group The The made a statement on the group's Web site describing how record companies marginalize...