Free music or stealing?

Cox News Service ^ | 12-23-2002 | Phil Kleur

[Drippy]

Free music, or stealing? By PHIL KLOER Cox News Service

WHEN Lucila Crena, a freshman at Emory University in Atlanta, turns off the light in her dormitory room at night to go to sleep, her computer is still working hard.

``There'll be like 30 things downloading at once,'' she says. By ``things,'' she means songs she is downloading illegally using Kazaa, a Napster-like program the music industry is trying to put out of business.

``Right now it's all Christmas songs,'' she says, ``but I've got a lot of swing and tango.'' She estimates she has 1,200 songs on her hard drive.

And yet, she acknowledges, when asked directly, ``I think it's wrong.''

Her roommate, Jolyn Taylor, agrees that downloading music on the Internet is wrong, but he does it also.

Trent Reznor, lead singer of the rock group Nine Inch Nails, has something to say to the Emory roommates: ``Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn't give you the right to do it. Once I record something, it's not public domain to give it away freely.''

There you have the battle lines.

Crena and Taylor have technology and the sheer weight of numbers on their side. According to a new poll by Ipsos-Reid, an independent marketing research company, more than 60 million Americans have downloaded music via the Internet - more than one-quarter of the population older than 12. Kazaa, one of the most popular downloading programs (also called file-sharing, because they allow individual computer users to share their files), is growing at a rate of almost 300 percent per year.

Reznor - along with a massive cohort of popular musicians including Missy Elliott, Neil Young, the Dixie Chicks, DMX and Elton John - have the law and morality on their side.

But the side with the law and morality appears to be losing, at least in the hearts and minds of music fans.

The result is the biggest disconnect between the law and otherwise law-abiding citizens since the days of Prohibition. Tens of millions of people are blithely breaking the law - and they know it. And most of the time, they just don't see what they're doing as particularly wrong.

``Some people don't know what's right to do, and some people don't want to do what's right,'' says Frank Breeden, president of the Gospel Music Association. The GMA is one of many organizations that work with the Recording Industry Association of America , which spearheads lobbying, lawsuits and educational campaigns to try to stem the downloading tide.

``People see this as an invisible, seemingly victimless activity, when the truth is it hurts the ultimate small business person, and that's the songwriter,'' who does not collect royalties, Breeden adds.

Randy Cohen, who writes the weekly ``Ethicist'' column for The New York Times Magazine, says he gets regular mail from music downloaders who realize that what they're doing isn't really right.

``They're hoping I can justify it for them,'' he says. But he won't. ``The central moral point is that you can't take someone's work without their permission.'' he says.

But Cohen acknowledges that the widespread nature and extreme ease of downloading music have made it a unique situation.

``People do this who would never in a million years go into a store and swipe a CD. Something a lot different is happening. There are temptations no ordinary human can resist,'' he says. ``And from the point of view of a kid, the music is already on her computer. It's all very good to say it's wrong, but the kids will just take it.''

Indeed, downloading is more a young people's game. The Ipsos-Reid poll found that more than 60 percent of people age 12 to 24 have downloaded music from the Net, compared with 19 percent of those 35 to 54.

That makes it an issue for teachers to grapple with sometimes.

``The students do not see anything wrong with it,'' says J.T. Gilbert, who teaches religious education at St. Pius X High School in Atlanta. ``(But) I don't necessarily blame my students for their naivete. To me the parents are the moral guides to their children's life. What we cover at school needs to be followed at home.''

Cohen blames the record industry for allowing matters to get to this point by overcharging for CDs and being slow to set up legal downloading systems.

In fact, just about everybody blames the record industry (except people who work for the record industry).

``I can't come up with an ethical argument to defend downloading, but I feel like I'm ripping off some big corporation, which doesn't feel as bad,'' says Mike Garmisa, an Emory senior. ``Companies are definitely fixing CD prices, and artists are getting such a small percent of the price.''

The music industry is fighting all this with every resource it has.

CD sales are down about 11 percent so far this year compared with last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan, while sales of blank CDs are expected to jump more than 40 percent this year, according to the Consumer Electronics Association.

Critics of the industry say there's no proven link between declining CD sales and soaring music downloading; the industry says it's obvious what's happening.

In addition to legal remedies - the industry is trying to put several file-sharing companies out of business, just as it did Napster - the record labels have also pushed their artists front and center in an attempt to convince downloaders that what they are doing is wrong.

A new group funded by the Recording Industry Association, called MUSIC (Music United for Strong Internet Copyright) has started a series of TV ads and a Web site (www.musicunited.org) featuring musicians speaking directly to their fans.

``We really look at it as stealing, because ... you're not paying for it,'' says hip-hop star Nelly.

``I'm all for getting a taste of something before you buy it, but when it becomes more than a taste and people begin hoarding the entire work, it becomes piracy, which results in a system in which artists are not being rewarded for their work,'' says Vanessa Carlton, who broke out earlier this year with the hit ``A Thousand Miles.'' Others, from Luciano Pavarotti to Eminem, also sound off on the group's Web site.

Ken Vaux, a fellow at the Center for Ethics and Values in the Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Chicago, doubts the campaign will work on kids who have come to expect free downloadable music as virtually an entitlement.

``They'll say Eminem is 100 times a millionaire. Who cares if he doesn't get a royalty?''

The best solution, practically everyone agrees, would be for the record labels to set up their own system, where fans could download music legally for a reasonable fee.

``The record companies have only themselves to blame. They're dragging their feet, hoping they can still charge 20 bucks for a CD,'' says Cohen.

The labels have made a tentative start, with fee-based systems like MusicNet and PressPlay. But the systems still have huge gaps in their music libraries - the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Alicia Keys, No Doubt and Billy Joel are among many major musicians not yet available. All are available on free, but illegal, systems like Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster.

``It's still wrong to do this,'' Cohen says, ``but the law has to seem reasonable to people.''

[montag813]

Free music or stealing?

Borrowing a copy of music which was legally purchased, like recording LotR off cable and lending the tape to your friend.

[DAnconia55]

Downloading music, intercepting cable signals, etc., are not immoral acts. Certainly we can make them illegal, but in themselves they are not immoral.

You are stealing intellectual property.
Theft is immoral.

You may want to justify away that you're not stealing, but you are.

[DAnconia55]

I doubt that considering the people (RIAA and Hollywood Liberals) who sell music at ripoff prices

Ripoff implies theft. The people using Napster/Kazaa are thieves, not the producers of the CD.

You have the choice to buy the CD at the price offered, or not. Nothing else.

You do not have the right to steal the work of the artist, because you don't like the price of the painting.

[DAnconia55]

and the rest of them are simply older, unique tunes that won't drive me to buy a whole CD just to hear them

I believe after a certain time, the copyrights expire, and you can do this.

[DAnconia55]

Interesting opinion for one who frequents a site that does just that. The articles reprinted here are also copyrighted and this site has already settled a suit in the matter. Of course, I don't hold that it is stealing or unethical at all. I believe that Free Republic is making legitimate use of the "Fair Use" provision in copyright law that allows people to exchange copyrighted materials for disussion so long as they do not profit by it.

Invalid comparison.

A correct comparison would be a music critic group all of whom listen to a track and then comment on it.

None of us here print the entire articles to hardcopy in a similar format to the newspaper and leave them laying around the house forever.

We're also a press here. There is no right to freedom of music guaranteed in the Constitution.

[FITZ]

People have been copying music since before the 8-tracks, if they make it impossible with CDs---which is up to them to do ---certainly not the government's job ---then people will record casettes.

[Revolting cat!]

This is becoming the new I Am a Bad American thread. And, as the late great Paul Lynde used to say "I'm shick of it!" (I think it was Paul Lynde.) I've said and heard everything there is to say and hear about it. So let me focus on another seemingly trivial aspect. How many trillions does RIAA say they're losing? Where would that money come from? Where does it go if not to purchase the latest Faith Hill? This custom of presenting totally dishonest figures is what, in my eyes, destroys the credibility of these organizations. I don't want to hear any more when I hear that 40 million children are in poverty, that there are X million homeless, that 10% of everybody is "gay"!

The point here is that most of the downloaders would not purchase the overpriced CD's to own the one or two tunes from each of them that they are now downloading! You make bogus claims, you don't deserve sympathy!

[philo]

Quick: Do you remember the Tradewinds other hit?

[SamAdams76]

None of us here print the entire articles to hardcopy in a similar format to the newspaper and leave them laying around the house forever.

I've got three-ring binders of posts dating back to the Prodigy days of the mid-1990s. (I really do need to get rid of them as I haven't looked at them in years).

It could also be argued that people who download MP3s don't keep them into perpetuity. I eventually clean all my MP3s off my hard drive from time to time. I only download them to sample music I haven't heard before. I give them a few listens and either buy the CD or trash them. It just isn't practical for me to waste time archiving music I don't care for to CDs.

My public library has an entire room dedicated to music CDs and movies on DVD/video. People are free to borrow those as they do books. It is probably easier to copy CDs at home from those than to download the individual MP3s. I wonder why there isn't a clamor from the RIAA about that.

[SamAdams76]

Quick: Do you remember the Tradewinds other hit?

"Mind Excursion."

I'm a 60s and 70s music junkie.

[koax]

i just downloaded it, and win xp immediately asked permission to report a "problem" to its maker, bill gates.

one of my college computer instructors says that ms routinely collects copyright infringement info.

[philo]

Congats, You just won a copy of the T.A.M.I. show!

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ahh but it is a ripoff because it cost less than a dollar to produce a music CD and the RIAA get 98% of the gross of each music CD, the other 2% is used to pay for the creation and advertising of that music CD, what is left over of that 2% (which it basically nothing) is then given to the artist. That plus the RIAA basically has a monopoly in selling of music in the U.S. and the price fixing on all music CDs makes it a ripoff.

Notice how a DVD movie cost less than the soundtrack on CD of that very movie.

But that is not what pisses me off about them. What pisses me off is the fact that they are trying to cripple and control any and ALL new technology so that they can maintain their monopoly indefinitely.

So tell me DAnconia55, are you an agent for the RIAA? Or the MPAA?

[Paladin2]

Actually a statistical case could likely be made that for all of the shared files, the number of instances of a given cut being simultaneously playing are less than the number of "licenses" that have been sold. Therefore there are enough "licenses" to cover use. No case. Technology has provided efficiency to lower costs by providing better utilization.

[Paul C. Jesup]

That might be true, if it can be proven, with record of sells, than that can be used to crush the RIAA's arguements.

[Six Bells]

The piper must be paid.

[kAcknor]

....the industry says it's obvious what's happening.

kAcknor Sez:

This is what's obvious to me:

I recently heard a song on the radio that I liked. Had to listen around a few weeks because of the irritating habit they have of not telling the name of the groups they play, but I eventually found out. Then while Christmas shopping I passed a shop in the mall and decided to get the CD with the song.

Found it.

$19.98!!!

They have to be kidding. The only cut I knew was that one, and it just wasn't worth it.

So, the "industry" catches my ear, hooks me into wanting the cut. Has me actively searching and anticipating buying the CD, then blows it completely by overpricing.

I DJ a bit for a local Swing Dance club, and dance myself. But if they want me to spend cash on unknowns (like the rest of that CD) they can forget it. I'll stick to stuff I listen to first at the club or from friends. I'm finished with getting one good song, and the rest trash.

If they want to fix the "problem" they better look at their own first. Discounts, sales and fair pricing works. It's time for the music companies to learn this.

"yIQeqQo' neH, DoS yIqIp!" (Don't just aim, hit the target!)

Basic HTML help for new FR posters. <Ver 1.4>

[M. Thatcher]

A "thank you" would be nice.

Thank you.

[fnord]

If you download the Electric Amish, you will surely burn in hell ...