Ethical Theft? NICOLE HENDERSON

Transcription

1 NICOLE HENDERSON This paper was written formichael Bishop s Honors Englsih 1101 class. In 2002, 31% of consumers admitted stealing merchandise an average of eleven times per week (Levin 57). More disturbing, a survey of American adults revealed that 88% see nothing wrong with stealing (Levin 49). Although these respondents may be surprised to learn they answered this way, by endorsing online file-sharing, they inadvertently condoned theft. America s continued use of music-downloading programs suggests the nation s general acceptance of illegal file-swapping. A growing majority of Americans depend on the Internet for free music files to avoid paying record companies.while the majority of America justifies illegal file-sharing, reasons to endorse online piracy prove feeble in light of unwavering ethical principles. In a society that widely accepts online piracy, I found it relatively easy to silence my conscience and bend my ethical standards in order to acquire free music. Actually, I am not even positive my conscience required quieting, nor my ethical standards bending; I cannot recall a time I ever considered downloading music morally wrong. For years, I downloaded countless songs, burned an incalculable number of CDs, and stole from hundreds of recording artists without the slightest hesitation. Perhaps my subconscious used the undeniable wealth of musicians, along with the weightlessness of my own pocket-book, to justify my crimes; perhaps the approval of my parents and peers contributed to my dormant conscience; perhaps the unlikelihood of getting caught played a role in my disregard for the law. Whatever the reasons, I, along with so many other Americans, found myself stealing music routinely unconcerned with the laws against downloading, the musicians I was ripping off, or the ethical principles I was ignoring. Despite its illegality, free music downloading has become increasingly popular throughout the United States. An article in the CQ Researcher claims that computer users [in America] illegally download more than 2.6 billion copyrighted files every month (Greenblatt par.8). The music industry has reason to be concerned online file-sharing could diminish its market. More and more, consumers rely on the World Wide Web, which has become an important platform of data exchange because it facilitates nearly free distribution [of music] with little difficulty (Chiou 162). The Internet s vastness makes regulation practically Volume 3 1

2 impossible; as a result, illegal file-sharing sweeps the nation. In addition to creating safeguards for their users, online downloading programs contain music that encompasses all genres, appeals to all age groups, and is fast and easy to acquire. Robert F. Easley suggests that, as a result, people feel that it [downloading music] is not stealing because the music is readily available on the Internet (309). Because of free music s immense appeal, Americans have formed an array of justifications for breaking the law. Many Americans assert that downloading music does not harm already rich record companies and, therefore, does not infringe upon moral standards. In truth, online file-sharing significantly threatens the jobs of many people tied to the music industry. In an article in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Aron M. Levin, Mary Conway Dato-on, and Kenneth Rhee claim that research demonstrates that consumers rationalize unethical behavior by denying injury.... [and that] a consumer s ambivalence towards unethical behavior becomes more acceptable to him/herself when the seller suffers little or no economic harm from the consumer s action (Levin 50). If a person deems an act harmless, he or she can subsequently consider it moral. Given the affluent state of large record companies and overweight artists, the majority of users believe that illegal file-sharing doesn t harm anyone (Ethics par. 2). Thus, by believing in the benignity of online piracy, Americans rationalize their continued reliance on illegal downloading programs to acquire music. When surveyed, a twenty-year-old accounting major explained, I personally have downloaded more than 100 songs...the big question is Do I feel guilty about stealing from record labels and recording artists? The answer is a simple no. The artists are rich, the record labels are filthy rich...and I am on a college budget (Levin 56). While the respondent may not concern himself with the financial circumstances of rich record labels and recording artists, illegal file-sharing also affects less affluent members of the music industry (Levin 56). While speaking about the effects of online piracy, Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claimed illegal file-swapping robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, stifles the careers of up-and-coming musicians and threatens the jobs of tens of thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry (Greenblatt par.15). Despite popular belief, record sales do not determine the incomes solely of big stars and top record producers they affect those of middle- and lower-class workers as well. In a debate over legal and ethical issues concerning file-sharing, Matther Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs for the RIAA, claimed that: Dwindling market share has resulted in job losses... It is everybody from the guy who is an upcoming star, to the businessman whose job it 2 Citations

3 NICOLE HENDERSON is to promote music, to the fellow who works in the record store, to the woman who drives the truck to deliver the music, to the people who work in the CD manufacturing plants.we re talking about tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs lost. (Cleary par.6) After considering the widespread effects of illegal file-sharing, on both wealthy and common associates of the music industry, Americans cannot legitimately argue for the harmlessness of online piracy and, therefore, cannot ignore the ethical principles that prohibit it. Beyond the belief that file-sharing is an innocuous practice, many Americans justify their use of music-downloading software by citing the high price of CDs. However, stealing over-priced merchandise ignores ethical principles, whereas a more progressive approach may not. Writer Dave Kearns outlines the moral concerns of online piracy: In traditional ethical studies, the classic problem is the starving man can a starving man ethically steal a loaf of bread if he has no money? The modern version is, evidently, can the person who wants to listen to music steal it if he thinks the price is too high? (18) Many consumers feel entitled to free music at the expense of the music industry, which, they feel, has overpriced its products.when surveyed, a 21-year-old management major said, CDs are definitely not worth the money they cost... The entertainment business is definitely ripping the buyers off and we have been supporting them for a while. It is about time we got something for free.we deserve it (Levin 57). By placing the blame on the record companies greed, Americans attempt to legitimize their dependency on Online downloading services. In an article entitled Intellectual Property: Napster and Ethics, Dave Kearns quotes Tim Reilly, saying, They [the music industry] are training people to steal by giving them no legitimate alternative (Kearns 18). Kearns goes on to refute Reilly s statement: No legitimate alternative? The alternative you have to what you feel is over-priced merchandise is the same as it always was don t buy it. If enough people don t buy it, then one of three things happen: a) the vendor goes out of business... b) competitors spring up to lower prices... or c) the vendor lowers the price. (18) While CD prices may, indeed, be excessive, stealing a high-priced product does not provide a morally sound solution. Rather than downloading illegal music and compromising their ethics, Americans should rely on successful boycotts and other legal initiatives to convince record companies to lower the price of CDs. In addition to rationalizing theft by citing the high price of CDs, many Americans justify stealing music by overlooking the value of intellectual proper- Volume 3 3

4 ty. However, music files are valid products that deserve as much protection as material goods. In her article in Journal of Education for Business, Susan Lee Taylor claims that a number of college students believe it is acceptable to download files without paying for them and do not see anything unethical about passing around the intellectual property of others (307). Because of the intangible nature of music files and because consumers do not physically steal music, Americans readily justify illegal file-sharing. Record companies, however, consider downloading music from Web sites... unethical because the action deprives record companies and artists of fair profits and royalties (Levin 49). Record labels insist on a song s value, despite its elusive nature. Rushworth M. Kidder claims that the value of intellectual goods is a complex idea for our materialistic society, where value resides in stuff rather than thought (par.11). Because America s economy mostly deals with the material marketplace, determining necessary standards for protecting intangible music files proves difficult. Dave Kearns claims, The problem is that music, words, ideas all intellectual property are seen somehow, not being as worthy of protection as real things (18). As a result, millions of consumers download music files without paying artists the compensation they deserve. In order to understand the ethical considerations associated with stealing intellectual property, Kidder suggests a person can learn to distinguish the thing they bought (a CD or DVD) from the artistic expression it contains and which still belongs to somebody else (par.11). In doing so, perhaps Americans will realize the value of music files and consider copyright rather than illegally downloading an artist s work. Only after acknowledging the protection intellectual goods deserve will Americans stop rationalizing unethical online piracy. After discovering the weak justifications for downloading music, I cannot help but wonder where my conscience vacationed the past few years. Reasons endorsing illegal file-sharing fall eons short of presenting valid arguments, and yet I bought into them for years. Online file-swapping minimizes hundreds of thousands of incomes, it robs the music industry of millions of dollars, and it prevents musicians from earning the payment they deserve for their work. While I regret my role in the plight of the music industry, I must admit, it has contributed to my growth. By considering the moral questions posed by Internet file-sharing, I have learned that I can no longer base my ethical standards on those of my family, my peers, or the vast majority of American society. Ultimately, my moral convictions must stem from the voice of my conscience, my ability to reason, and a willingness to explore the ethical questions that present themselves throughout my lifetime. 4 Citations

5 NICOLE HENDERSON Works Cited Chiou, Jyh-Shen, Chien-yi Huang, and Hsin-hui Lee. The Antecedents of Music Piracy Attitudes and Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics 57 (2005): SpringerLink. U of North Florida Lib., Jacksonville, FL. 19 Nov < Cleary, Sharon. Debaters Wrestle Over Legality and Ethics of Online Music Swapping. Cornell Chronicle. 6 Nov Nov < sharing_debate.html>. Easley, Robert F. Ethical Issues in the Music Industry Response to Innovation and Piracy. Journal of Business Ethics 62 (2005): SpringerLink. U of North Florida Lib., Jacksonville, FL. 19 Nov < Ethics of File Sharing. Wikipedia,The Free Encyclopedia. 5 Dec Nov < ing&oldid= >. Greenblatt, Adam. Future of the Music Industry. The CQ Researcher (2003): Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. LaGrange Coll. Lib., LaGrange, GA. 17 Nov < Kearns, Dave. Intellectual Property: Napster and Ethics. (Industry Trend or Event). Network World (2001): 18. Thomson Gale. InfoTrac. U of North Florida Lib., Jacksonville, FL. 19 Nov < Volume 3 5