smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "David Bash" <bashpop@earthlink.net> |
| Subject | Re: Morality and mp3s |
| Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:28:54 -0800 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (9.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "josh chasin" <jchasin@n...> wrote:
> A few days ago Jim "Synchro" posed a challenge, to defend the morality of
> downloading mp3s, but independent of the economic implications.
>
> I've been pondering this since.
>
> First off, I would suggest that one cannot segment the economic issue from
> the morality issue, for the simple reason that if there were no economic
> impact, there would be no moral issue (is it still stealing if the thing
is
> of no value?) In other words, I suggest the issue of morality goes away
if
> there is no economic harm inflicted via the downloading of mp3s.
Not necessarily. Let's use as an example maybe a picture of your
grandparents or a birthday card you received when you were six years old.
Those items may have virtually no monetary value, but they're very precious
to you. If someone were to take those from you without your permission,
would you not consider
that person to have stolen your property...and their act to be immoral?
You may see that illustration as apples and oranges (or birthday cards and
mp3s), but the essence is the same: if people are downloading mp3s from
non-regulated, non-sanctioned websites, it can be viewed as immoral.
> I don't think a legitimate case could be made that, by making the
> intellectual property of my new single so ubiquitous by playing it to
death
> on the radio, the station is pirating my intellectual property, because
> someone out there will decide "I don't need that record-- I've heard it
> enough." (Side note: I did nott buy the Norah Jones CD because I had
heard
> it enough last year; every time we went to someone's house, they simply
HAD
> to play it for us.) No, while it may be that a consumer "burns out" on a
> song via heavy rotation, on balance we all accept prima facie that free
> exposure to intellectual property via the airwaves constitutes trial, and
is
> promotion and advertising, which generates sales, which benefits, not
harms,
> the artist.
If you're talking about someone ripping mp3s from their CDs and sending them
to friends so that the friends don't have to buy the CDs, what I'm about to
say probably doesn't apply. However, if you're talking about downloading
mp3s from sites like Napster or Winmix, read on...
Here's where the radio vs. mp3 analogy is apples and oranges. Sure, a radio
station can play a song to death and therefore dissuade some folks from
buying a record, but the essential factor here is that the relationship
between the record industry and radio is sanctioned and symbiotic. Radio
stations (for the most part, leaving out some very small pirate stations)
are regulated, legally sanctioned bodies, and the stations have both the
permission and blessing of the record companies and the artists to play
their songs. This is often not the case with mp3s. As I mentioned earlier,
the downloading of mp3s from non-regulated sites has not been legally
sanctioned by anyone.
> Now then, mp3. Pity the poor mp3. It is, after all, but a humble
> compression algorithm, a file format. When did it become the devil
> incarnate? I understand the implications that might arise because I can
> "possess" and re-produce an mp3, whereas a song on the radio is gone after
> it has played. Yet I could always tape my favorite songs off the radio
> (show of hands-- who taped Casey Kasem as a kid? David Bash, don't tell
me
> your hand isn't raised!) And I don't think this taping is really
considered
> the breach in morality that mp3s appear to be. So I submit, as someone
has
> already done, that mp3 is quite simply today's radio-- a new technology
for
> stimulating trial, bringing with it a whole new set of ramifications.
(Did
> I mention that I never, ever listen to the radio?)
Yeah, my hand is raised very high. Of course, in my case that made me want
the record all the more...but if every consumer was like I was when I was at
the height of my record collecting years, the industry would be absolutely
rolling in dough. :-)
In the '80s the industry perceived home taping as just as much of a breach
of morality as the downloading of mp3s is today. There are four major
reasons why this doesn't appear to be so:
1. Today's record industry is a much bigger animal today than it was in the
'80s, and therefore can make a hell of a lot more noise than they used to.
2. It's been 20 years since the huge furor over home taping hit its most
feverish peak, and with the passage of time our perception of this
phenomenon has lessened in intensity.
3. With the proliferation of the internet, there is a much more efficient
mode of communication, and therefore a much more powerful voice on the
subject of mp3s. In the '80s there certainly were numerous articles written
on the subject and the slogan "home taping is hurting the record industry"
was being hurled about, but the communication networks of the day just
didn't allow these outcries to be heard quite as effectively.
But perhaps the biggest reason is that, short of some sort of Orwellian
infrastructure, home taping is something is virtually impossible to control.
How is it to be enforced? It's not as if the industry (or the government,
for that matter) could send people into individual houses and seize home
tapes! I think the industry ultimately faced that reality, threw up their
hands and gave up. With the downloading of mp3s, it's different. People
are downloading these songs from websites that *can* be abolished with some
effort, as was Napster. I would imagine the industry feels that they have
the ability to at least put up a very brave fight against this sort of
thing.
> There have always been heavy radio listeners who were light or non-record
> buyers; were these knaves pirating intellectual property by enjoying music
> withouut paying for it? Shouldn't the RIAA be having my mother arrested?
Well, the sad truth is that if they could have, they probably would have...
> So where are we? I would argue that the practice of downloading mp3s is
not
> in and of itself immoral, does not in and of itself constitute theft.
Hell,
> Jill Sobule, Prince, Todd Rundgren, Jim Boggia, and dozens of other
artists
> I'm too lazy to think of right now give them away as inducements to
> patronage. Janis Ian has been very literate in her writings on the way mp3
> have helped her career.
Oh yeah, the sharing of mp3s can very much be a boon for an artist. The key
element here is that these giveaways are *within the artist's control*. Not
only does that enable the artist to regulate how much and when it's given
away, but on a higher moral plane all conditions are met because nobody is
getting anything without permission.
> Many is the time I have emailed a choice mp3 to a friend. The most common
> outcomes are either (1) "Not my cup of Joe", or (2) "I just ordered the
> album, thanks for the heads-up!" I'm still waiting for someone to write
> back, "Thanks for saving me $15."
>
> What is important here is context. Does the mp3 fit in as part of a
broader
> marketing campaign for the recording itself? Can it indeed be construed
as
> today's favored method of trial among avid record purchasers? I believe
the
> answer here is yes.
Which is exactly why if the industry, the artists, the publishers,
etc...could work out some kind of co-op system, where the utilization of
mp3s was regulated and all of the above entities benefited from a monetary
standpoint, the mp3 could end up being one of the most useful tools the
whole record-making body has ever had at its disposal.
> Me, I guarantee you-- if I download your whole damn album in mp3 and like
> it, I'll chuck the files and make a beeline to Not Lame or the like.
So would I, and so would most ardent music fans, but unfortunately you, I,
and they make up an extremely small fraction of the record buying public at
large. The sad reality is that a significant percentage of music consumers
would gladly download mp3s illegally, or make copies of CDs from friends.
Even if it's only 10% of music consumers who are culpable, that translates
into a huge amount of $$$ lost to the industry.
> In colnclusion, then, I do not believe that the mp3 format in and of
itself,
> nor the downloading and distribution of same, is in any way a priori
> immoral.
The format is not, but the downloading of mp3s without permission is very
much so. I don't mean to come off as self-righteous here. I've been guilty
of doing questionable things over my record collecting tenure (e.g. I've
bought and traded quite a few bootlegs in my time), but that said I do
acknolwedge the immoral aspect of it.
> PS: Some may have read Henry Laura's comments on having seen the
Rosenbergs,
> and his lamentations at the prospect that they might be splitting up.
Dirty
> little secret: Henry's first exposure to the band? I gave him my "give to
a
> friend" copy of their last album. Trial or theft? You be the judge.
Trial, of course. But here again lies the main distinction. The Rosenbergs
included the extra CD in their "Mission: You" package for that very reason:
in the hope that someone like you would give the copy to a friend who would
in turn like the band...enough to come see their shows and then buy their
next album. A very clever marketing strategy if you ask me.
--
Pop Rules!!!!!
Take Care,
David
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.