So, now that that's out of the way...
I'd like to think that my views on music piracy aren't very simple. At the very least, I can't summarize my stance on music piracy in one sentence, and many of my friends already know that when asked what I think about music piracy, I'll either go into a 20 minute long rant that will be challenged by everyone, or I just won't answer because I don't feel like getting into it. I'll start off by saying that I think music piracy can be harmful... sometimes. I would prefer that in general people purchased their music legally, but there are some situations where I think that illegally downloading music is 100% justified. Here's when I think it's OK to illegally download music:
1. When the artists post the music themselves
This one should be pretty obvious. When artists make some of their songs available on the internet for free, it's a great promotional tool. I don't see why anyone would be against this, so I'll just move on to the next one.
2. If it's a rare album
OK, if there's an album you really want on your computer, and it's never been released on CD, or to buy it would cost like 50 million dollars, then it's cool if you illegally download it.
3. When the artist is dead
The central idea behind my opinions on music piracy is that a recording artist, as well as everyone else involved in the creation of an album, should be able to profit off of their music up to a certain point. I'll get into where exactly that point is in a little bit, but what I want to focus on right here is that the people who should profit from the album should be the people involved in making the album sound (and look) the way it does. That means that in addition to the musicians, other people such as producers, songwriters, and album artists should profit as well. Sorry, but this doesn't include the children of the recording artists. From what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), the way copyright works now is that any money made off of the work of a deceased artist goes to that artist's heirs. What I'm about to say might make me sound like a cold-hearted asshole, but here goes: there's absolutely no reason it should be this way. If the main person responsible for the creation of the music won't profit from album sales, there's no reason people should be forced to pay for the album. If a musician is dead, then all of their music should be made available on the internet for free. People should still have the option of buying a physical copy of the album, however, if they want to support the producers, songwriters, album artists, and maybe even the artists' kids. They just shouldn't have to give money to someone who didn't do anything related to what they're paying for.
4. If the artist is already ridiculously rich
One of the main arguments, I mean justifications, I've heard in favor of piracy is that really rich musicians don't need any more money from consumers. Well, that's true. I have no problem with people illegally downloading an album by Paul McCartney, or Michael Jackson, or Jay-Z, since it won't make any difference for them. I said earlier that musicians should be able to profit off of their music up until a certain point. Once a musician has a mansion, a private plane, and 20 cars, I'd say they've passed that point. People shouldn't be forced to pay for their favorite musician's 50,000 clothes. Of course, as with the previous situation, people should still have the option of paying for a physical copy of the album, since their money will support everyone else involved in its creation.
So, if your powers of deduction are good, then you can probably tell that the only situation where I'm absolutely, 100% NOT OK with piracy is when people illegally download music by struggling or underground musicians. I think it's selfish and greedy (yes, both, even though they mean the same thing) to enjoy listening to music by someone who has to work another job in order to feed themselves without them earning anything for it. I'm well aware that many underground musicians disagree with this philosophy, and that's completely OK; they can make their music available for free. But if a musician feels that they deserve to profit off of their music enough to have a decent life, then I, for one, will NOT illegally download their music.
Usually when I tell people my stance on illegal downloading, I receive tons of arguments, usually from people who illegally download music and don't want to feel terrible about themselves. So right now I'm going to attempt to refute all of the arguments I always receive in favor of illegal downloading.
One that I always hear, and that always makes me angry, is the classic "I still support bands whose music I illegally download, because I go to their shows." This argument is... what's that word I'm looking for... STUPID. For one thing, people who illegally download music often have absurd amounts of music on their computers, and a lot of it is by bands who have broken up; or by bands from other countries who are too obscure to tour outside of their home; or it's never listened to by the people who have it, because it was just an impulse download or it's meant to make them look more eclectic, so they'll never go to one of the shows. Or they don't even end up going to the concerts of the bands they like and have illegally downloaded, complaining that concerts are too expensive. Know why concerts are too expensive? BECAUSE BANDS DON'T MAKE AS MUCH MONEY OFF OF CDS AS THEY USED TO, BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING. Don't ever try this argument on me.
And now, a tangent:
Another effect of lower CD sales that I've observed first hand in Los Angeles over the past few years, and that I've written about before, is that CD stores are disappearing. Since no one buys CDs anymore, all the CD stores I used to go to in LA, except for the legendary Amoeba, are gone. This argument really just comes from personal attachment and nostalgia, and you may argue that there's nothing wrong with CD stores going out of business. But I remember a time when after school I could take a 15 minute bus ride to go to one of my favorite CD stores, where I would discover new music and be surrounded by like-minded people who were constantly judging my taste. It was wonderful, and now it's way harder for me to have those experiences.
Anyway, back to destroying the justifications of illegal downloading. I've been told many times that I'm just as bad as people who illegally download, since I burn CDs for friends and buy used CDs, which the artists don't profit from. Well, maybe I'm a little hypocritical, but I'm not as bad. I don't do it on as large a scale. If I were to sell a CD to a record store (which obviously I can't really do anymore), then one person could buy it. When I really like a CD and think other people should hear it, usually I'll burn it for 5 people at most. If I were to put a CD up on a website, then hundreds, if not thousands of people would download it. That's HUGE. And all of those people would be seeking it out. Burning CDs for friends is totally the opposite; usually when I burn a CD for friends it's the first time they'd heard of that band, who gets more publicity out of me. When people download albums, obviously they'd already heard of the band and won't be buying any of their CDs.
The other ridiculous justification I always hear goes something like this: "Record companies exploit musicians. By illegally downloading, I'm making a statement and not supporting record companies." True. And you're also not supporting the musicians. If I buy an album, then the musicians make some money off of it, even if it's less than they deserve. If I illegally download the album, then the musicians make no money. And neither do the producers, songwriters, or album artists. I agree that record companies can be terrible, and that the record industry really needs to change. Until that happens, I'll support record companies if it means supporting bands more than I could otherwise. Also, this argument really can't be used to refute my stance; when people talk about exploitative record labels, they're usually talking about the majors, and everyone who's signed to them usually makes insane amounts of money, so I think it's OK to illegally download their music. Most underground bands are signed to independent labels, which usually treat their musicians better. If your stance is the same as mine, then in general you won't be supporting exploitative record labels, and you will be supporting better ones.
There's one further point about my stance on illegal downloading that I'd like to make. Actually it's more related to general copyright law, intellectual property, and fair use. If I were to make the laws, then any band that wanted to could prevent people from downloading music for free up until they made a certain amount of money off of it. And in my fantasy world, once someone had legally obtained a recording, then they could do absolutely anything they wanted with it. They could turn it into a sample, they could put it in a mashup, they could make a remix of it, whatever. As long as they acknowledged the original recording. I think that academia is a good model to follow. Musicians should be able to directly quote people who have influenced them, as long as they site their sources and don't plagiarize. In a real legal system, laws would probably have to be more complex, but... I don't care. Now you know my stance on music piracy. Argue against it as much as you want.
0 comments :: A Piracy Rant
Post a Comment