Is it OK to download MP3s, software and movies without paying.

Arguments for and against

Let'due south treat this equally a argue and expect at the arguments for and against illegal downloading using music recordings as the master example.

1. It'southward Just a Copy

For: It is not stealing. It is just creating a copy of a product. That production still exists and still can be sold; therefore, downloading a copy of a calculator file is not the same as stealing a concrete product like a CD.

Confronting: Copyright laws are put into place to try to ensure that people in creative industries (filmmakers, musicians, music engineers, writers, composers, software developers etc.) are able to become paid for the things they create (their intellectual belongings). If artists work hard to etch and record songs, shouldn't they be able to gain fiscal rewards similar professionals in any other field? Not paying for something which is supposed to be paid for, no matter whether it is a physical object or not, is still wrong.
Winner: Against
Score: 0 – 1

two. I Back up the Artists I Similar in My Own Way

For: Retrieve of it like a test drive. I'll attempt out the songs and if I like them enough maybe I'll spend some coin and buy the album or perhaps I volition go to that ring'due south concert and buy some merchandise. Bands should focus on making money from concerts and merchandise rather than from selling music.

Against: In that location are a lot of ifs and maybes in the higher up statement. For all the songs you accept downloaded and liked, have yous always ended up buying something (tickets, a CD, merchandise) from that artist? Likewise, you can usually preview parts of songs on Amazon or unabridged songs YouTube. Does one actually need to hear every function of every song on the whole anthology earlier you determine to buy information technology?

Winner: Against. For the many individuals who really deport out on their promise to support the artists they similar, the winner might be 'for', but when you consider all the people who download things they similar, but don't end upwards buying much of anything, the decision would accept to go the other manner. In this BBC video interview, musician David Lowery video points out some of the hypocrisy of online music sharing: www.bbc.co.u.k./news/magazine-25771368. He mentions how people are willing to pay corporations for hardware and broadband access that facilitate online sharing, yet are unwilling to pay for the artistic talent actually producing the songs.
Score: 0 – 2

three. I Wouldn't Buy It Anyway

For: It'due south not like anyone is losing money. If I didn't become information technology for costless, I wouldn't buy it anyway.

Against: Are you kidding? According to the RIAA, the recording industry alone loses over $12 billion per year due to music piracy.

Winner: Draw. Both sides are using misleading show. On the one manus, virtually people—if music, software and movies could not be freely downloaded—would likely stop up buying some of these things. On the other hand, information technology is also wrong to count every song pirated as money lost. People who are now downloading things for free would be more discerning if they had to purchase things, and a lot of what is downloaded certainly wouldn't exist bought.
Score: 0.5 – 2.5

4. The Robin Hood Approach Office ane

For: Pop stars are rich. Do I really desire to be subsidizing their luxurious lifestyles? They don't need whatever more money. Vocal uploaders and downloaders are modern-twenty-four hours Robin Hoods

Confronting: Is it really OK to steal from the rich? Permit'southward only leave that argument aside for at present. Are you trying to say that people are downloading only the songs of wealthy, pampered pop stars? Most performers and songwriters are only normal people struggling to make ends run across. It's difficult for non-mainstream artists to proceeds a foothold in the manufacture, and without getting paid for their music, it volition be adjacent to impossible for anyone to suspension out of the apprentice/hobbyist stage.

Winner: Against
Score: 0.5 – three.v

5. The Robin Hood Arroyo Part ii

For: Record companies are rich. Besides, they accept most all the performers' coin from CD sales; artists can make more than money from concerts and merchandise. That way, they get the money, non those immoral, greedy corporations. The musicians should cutting out the centre human and simply sell their music to us directly.

Confronting: Artists do get royalties from CD and online music sales, though terms vary greatly (entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm), and it is true that many artists will receive nothing (because they need to pay back advances given to them by the company that are used to produce the record). Record companies, notwithstanding, need to invest a lot of money in each new human activity and in the large majority of cases, these acts end upwards losing the company money. Besides, you lot say y'all are supporting the artist, but by non buying their work, yous are still denying them income and are making it less probable they can get a new contract and exist able to release new music and continue tours.

Winner: Draw. The recording industry can (and should) improve the fashion artists are treated and remunerated, but downloading music without buying it yet harms the artist. Say for instance, an artist needs to pay dorsum a record company's advances—the less money existence made from music sales, the longer it volition accept earlier the performer receives any royalties. I don't remember we are at the stage all the same where a lot of acts can jettison support from record labels.
Score: one – four

half-dozen. Permit Them Eat Cake

For: Many artists simply want to be heard and praised. Anyone who is in the music business for the money is not a truthful artist. Free downloading means more than people can hear their music, right? Isn't that what they want?

Against: Praise tin can't purchase food. While some artists do release complimentary music (as a kind of promotion or because they care for music as a hobby and don't need the income), professionals tin't be expected to give their piece of work abroad for free.

Winner: Against
Score: 1 – five

vii. Information technology'due south Too Expensive

For: Music CDs, Software, and Movie DVDs are simply likewise expensive. For example, digital recording techniques have reduced the amount of money needed to tape a CD. Product, packaging and delivery costs are reduced (especially when compared to the price or making vinyl albums). In add-on, nearly albums aren't worth it. If I buy an album, at that place might only be i or two decent songs on it. The value for money only isn't there.

Confronting: There are lots of costs involved. Sure record companies make a lot of money from CD sales of very popular artists, simply this coin is used to invest in new artists and less commercially successful artists. Anyways, merely considering something is expensive, that doesn't give you the right to get it for costless. And possibly if y'all stopped downloading it for complimentary, reocrd companies would reduce prices.

Winner: For. Originally, I called this a describe, but I think I'll have to become with the 'Fors' on this one. Even some music industry insiders concur that music CDs and downloads are over-priced (world wide web.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11547279)
Score: two – five

8. Everyone Is Doing It

For: Everyone I know has illegal downloads. Maybe it is 'illegal', but it can't exist wrong if so many people are doing it and they have been doing it for years.

Confronting: That doesn't make information technology right. Throughout history, there are many examples of 'everyone' doing the wrong thing (slavery in the confederate states, apartheid in South Africa, Nazism in Germany). If a kind of beliefs is a social norm, it is much easier for people to justify doing it, only information technology may nonetheless not be the right thing to practise.

Winner: Draw. The 'for' statement doesn't really stand up (information technology is a kind of logical fallacy known as 'argumentum ad populum'), but creative industries take been dull off the mark to recognize and tackle this problem, and so they go a lot of the blame. How could the industries accept responded? For starters, they could have reviewed their pricing and marketing strategies, fabricated it cheap and easy to download things and dealt with international online sales and licensing arrangements years ago, like when Napster was released in 1999. To see how i company in the industry, HMV, failed to heed the warning signs, yous tin read this article by Philip Beeching: Why companies fail – the ascent and fall of HMV
Score: ii.5 – v.5

9. I Tin can't Buy It; I Can Download It

For: Some things are not available to be bought (especially if you live outside of the US) or are very difficult to buy, but they tin can exist hands downloaded for free.

Against: It's hard, simply you should nevertheless do the correct thing and buy information technology.

Winner: For. If something is easier to get for gratis than it is to buy, that's a very potent disincentive to purchasing. This is especially true in many countries outside the The states—in that location are no equivalents to sites like Netflix, and the iTunes store just became available to selected countries outside the US before this yr. A similar problem exists with the regional coding system for DVDs. If, for example, the only way I can purchase a DVD is to buy one that is from another region, the DVD will not work in my region-specific hard drive or DVD role player. I tin can, all the same, download a region-costless version of the movie for free. What should I practise? The answer is obvious.

(Edit: since this article was written, it equally become a lot easier to buy songs online effectually the world. However, the music manufacture was really slow in making this happen. While they dithered, many people got in the addiction of downloading things for free.)
Score: three.5 – 5.5

x. Information technology Frees up Money for Other Things

For: If I had to buy all my music, software, movies and TV shows, I wouldn't accept money left over for other things similar proficient coffee. Overall, I'm not hurting the economy.

Against: And then creative artists lose out while Starbucks gains? That'south non a very convincing argument. Would you listen if we took some of your salary and redistributed it to the owner of our favorite pub?

Winner: Against. The point is that while the economy overall is not beingness harmed, the sector responsible for creating music loses out while unrelated retailers proceeds.
Score: 3.5 – 6.5

11. It's for the Sake of the Artist

For: If artists had nothing to do simply write music they would have very few interesting life experiences to inspire them. If we don't pay them, they will need to find different jobs and run into different kinds of people. Therefore, their art will be more than interesting and meaningful, right?

Against: Seriously? You're actually reaching here.

Winner: Let's just throw this argument out. I have read it on online forums, so it does exist, but information technology seems too delusional to be considered as an bodily argument.
Score: 3.5 – 6.five

12. I Bought it Another Format Already

For: I bought this album on vinyl, I bought information technology on cassette, I bought the CD (merely left it in the sun also long) and at present you want me to pay a fourth time for a digital version?

Against: It's a new format, an upgrade!

Winner: For. Maybe for this kind of case, there should be the same kind of upgrade pricing that is bachelor with some software programs. If we are arguing that people should be paying for the content (i.e., the song) of a digital download—and non a physical product (meet Point ane)—people who take already paid for that content should be given some consideration.
Score: 4.five – half dozen.5

And the winner is:

Against iv.5 – 6.5 (points decision).

Some of the 'for' arguments seem to downgrade the office of the artist. The artists are non being considered as professionals trying to earn a living, but every bit either celebrities who have too much already or as hobbyists who should be grateful we care about them enough to listen to them.

The remaining arguments tend to focus on fairness (Are prices fair? Practice artists receive their off-white share of sales revenue?) and the practical issue of availability. There are, therefore, a few things artistic industries, similar the record industry, can do to improve the situation:

  • Make songs piece of cake to buy online, fifty-fifty if you lot live exterior the United states of america (edit, this has improved a lot since the commodity was first written)
  • Review the pricing system (If prices are depression enough and if people can preview and buy simply the track they want, will they be more willing to spend their money?)
  • Brand sure the actual artistic people are treated and paid properly and that the full general public is aware of information technology (so that when people purchase music online or on CDs, they experience that they are mainly supporting the artist, not the company).
  • Don't unnecessarily restrict uses of bought products (e.thousand., A DVD should exist playable in whatsoever computer/DVD player).

Bonus round for online video services

The in a higher place arguments likewise apply to services similar NetFlix, HBO, Amazon Prime and Disney+. If you lot want to watch all of the peak shows, you volition need to pay for all of the services, which seems excessive. I would honour a point to the 'pirating is OK' camp, for this argument.

So now we are at 5.5 to half-dozen.v. That ways the debate is becoming a lot 'greyer' than I had originally anticipated.

Then why do people still think it is OK?

Arguments seven and 9 are just two arguments, but they are stiff ones. If the product isn't easily available, is considered too expensive by the target consumers and/or comes with cumbersome restrictions, tin you arraign them if they then make up one's mind to become the same product for free?

In addition, Argument 8, the "Everyone is Doing It" argument, is very attractive. Though information technology would non stand up in any kind of fence, it does make it piece of cake for people to justify their actions. Later all, if anybody is doing something, how bad tin can it be?

Have I missed whatever common arguments?

What are you views? Do you agree with the 'results'?  Get out a comment below.

The time to come?

If people continue to download illegally and corporations do nothing constructive to entice people to purchase music, different things might happen:

Best Case Scenario: The entire mode the music industry works changes. Performers find efficient ways to reach their target audiences directly and brand enough coin through music sales, concerts, publishing rights, music streaming, video streaming, promotion and merchandising. Basically, the big labels lose their power while the artists proceeds independence (unless services like Spotify and iTunes go more dominant and accept over the power and the greenbacks that the major labels used to enjoy). Freed of the excessive demands to be commercial, artists usher in a renaissance age of musical inventiveness.

Worst Case Scenario: It will become more than and more hard for people to have a career in the music manufacture. Great new bands will still get in on the scene, but they won't be able to back up themselves with the income they earn through their music, and within a few years, they will flame out, sputter abroad or just settle on grinding out a career on their regional bar scene. If you await at US demography statistics, the number of people who place themselves as musicians has dropped considerably (Have we lost 41 per centum of our musicians? Depends on how you (the RIAA) count). This definitely doesn't indicate a renaissance in the music industry.

Where do yous recollect we are heading?

Farther viewing

A lot of the arguments in favor of illegal downloading seem to exist rationalizations that allow people to benefit (get lots of free stuff) while at the aforementioned time feeling adept about themselves. Here is an interesting video on this topic.

Disclaimers

What about myself? Equally a music creator, I would consider myself as a hobbyist; my music is complimentary to download and is complimentary to use on non-commercial projects. However, I do non rule out selling/licensing the music in future.

As a consumer, I am old-fashioned. I like to buy things in stores; I similar having a physical product in my hand when I buy something. Have I ever downloaded something without paying? Occasionally, if I cannot buy something in a store, I will download it.

Related articles

Music: Public Domain, Off-white Use, Copyright and YouTube: Guidelines for video-makers
Creative Commons Licenses: Advantages and Drawbacks

~by longzijun

writing

Return to Writing