In our discussion of ethical theory, we have seen many instances where an action can be considered right or wrong depending on which theory is used to justify it. For example, the act of lying is always considered immoral under Kantian ethics because there are no exceptions to moral laws. On the other hand, a Utilitarianist would argue that in some situations lying is not immoral because the benefits created by that lie would outweigh the harm they cause to the affected parties.
Consider another example where moral contradictions are often reached. Sharing electronic media is becoming an increasingly debatable issue in computer ethics as communication networks and technological devices make it easier to do so. In our country, it is illegal to distribute free copies of copyrighted material such as CDs and DVDs. What ethical principles can you use to justify this law?
However, what if the distributor is sharing downloaded music with his or her friends who could not afford to buy the music anyway? Under Utilitarian ethics, would this action no longer be immoral?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good question, and one I hope the class will address. We'll also be discussing intellectual property next week, which ties in nicely with Katie's points...
ReplyDeleteGood questions Katie! As an illustrator and photographer, the issues surrounding intellectual property really hit home for me. In a media law class, we discussed copyright law and how the Internet has made enforcing it a million times more difficult. While digital file sharing has left the music industry in ruins and people generally know that file sharing is illegal, few people hesitate before copying photos from a Google image search or copying and pasting text. I think the laws can be justified because the artist/writer/musician has the right to make money from his/her craft and if it's stolen, they have no motivation or means to continue creating.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting part of your post concerns the Utilitarian view and sharing music, art, etc. with those who can't afford it. While I know Kant would disagree, I feel that sometimes sharing a song or video with someone to make their day better justifies a small virtual "theft" from a recording artist. Digital file sharing has opened lucrative avenues for musicians, film producers and artists who would otherwise never be able to be published and don't mind at all that their files float around the Internet thanks to the beauty of Creative Commons licensing.
I feel that in order to really decide if sharing intellectual property is immoral we would need a culmination of Kantian ethics, Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory. I feel that in different situations one alone would not be sufficient. Yes, stealing is wrong, but if it made a person in tremendous strife happy and it only cost the musician a few bucks then what is the harm in that? However, on the Kantian side, if everyone committed that same behavior then it would hurt the artist in a huge way, if they only relied on that particular medium. Also Social Contract Theory would argue that everyone should agree to not share intellectual property so that artists are protected and that the rest of the society will be able to continue enjoying their work, because ultimately there would be no music/photos...etc if they could not earn a living through these means. This is a very torn argument for me and all perspectives from these different ethical theories make sense. How do we decide?
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing music specifically, I believe digital file sharing should be illegal. The ability to make money off their music is by far the strongest incentive for most musicians to create music. If they are not able to make money off of their music, then we as the consumers will also be hurt because we will not have access to their music. Furthermore, as it is in the film industry, there will always be a black market for illegal music sharing. Almost all computers are now fitted with CD burners, making it easy to copy someone else's CD. My point is that if someone really wants to get music without having to pay, they can generally find a way. Therefore, digital file sharing for music should be illegal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brad but I can see how this could be a controversial issue if looked at from both the perspectives of an Act Utilitarian and a Rule Utilitarian. Looking at it from the perspective of an act utilitarian, I feel like the person sharing music could justify their actions. That person is only sharing it with a few friends who could not afford it anyway and the musician would only lose a few dollars at most. I feel like the positives in that specific situation outweigh the negatives, especially because this act may help build the musicians fan base. Taken from the perspective of a rule utilitarian, I don't think sharing downloaded music can be justified. Sharing music would benefit many who could not afford the music or would prefer to spend their money on other items. However, musicians are professionals that provide a service,just like doctors or lawyers, and should be compensated for that service. Stealing music from musicians not only deprives them of a source of income, but prevents their producers, marketing team, agents and others from making an income as well. The positive feelings experienced by those that receive the music don't outweigh the consequences for the musicians.
ReplyDeleteI think the easy answer to this question is that it should be illegal to share music. It's very difficult to argue that artist's don't deserve compensation for their work. They do have to make a living somehow. Unfortunately, I think the question that logically follows of how to enforce this law is far more difficult to answer. The RIAA, for example, has chosen to sue its customer base in an effort to make it clear to the public that sharing music is illegal. Is this an appropriate measure or should other actions be taken to keep people from pirating music?
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that the RIAA's recent lawsuits have been aimed at deterring the future illegal downloading of music rather than completely eliminating the practice. While these acts are made with positive intentions, they have only proven to scare the public rather than actually help the artists. CD sales are still dramatically down and people are resorting to avenues such as BitTorrent to obtain free music. The likelihood of being sued by using these measures is still rather small; therefore I think that the RIAA must re-evaluate their strategy. Artists also must determine other methods to make money in the new digital era. Therefore, in response to Jordan's question, the musicians are in the drivers seats in these circumstances. I think that they should be responsible for finding a way to make their work worth paying for.
ReplyDeleteb.fonville, you bring up an interesting point about the ball being in the artist's court. Some interesting points were also brought up in our recitation today. I would definitely say that the artist can gain a lot from the increased exposure that wouldn't occur if their music was more difficult (or expensive) to obtain. Especially if they make a good chunk of their paycheck from performances and concerts. If I'm given a free copy of an artist's album but I end up paying double its cost for a concert ticket, it's a win win situation, right?
ReplyDeleteKbilzi, thanks. As we discussed digital rights today in class I immediately thought of "The Grey Album," a Mashup album by Danger Mouse produced in 2004. For those unfamiliar with this style of hip-hop, it is a mixture between Jay-Z's "Black Album," and The Beatles hit album known as "The White Album." Originally released only to a few internet outlets such as BitTorrent (in the text,) it became notorious for its controversy. EMI owns the rights to The Beatles works and while Danger Mouse doesn't include any of their lyrics, the background music is used in the songs. This brought up several lawsuits especially when the album won "The best album of 2004" by Entertainment Weekly. My point is that I have become more interested in both Jay-Z's and the Beatles due to my interest in the Grey Album. I think that the fact that this was offered for free should be taken into consideration by the RIAA. There are numerous other examples but this one sticks out in my mind.
ReplyDeleteb.fonville, I think you make an interesting point that sometimes the cross between different genre's of music can make the genre's themselves more interesting. However, I've never heard of Danger Mouse so I can't specifically discuss that album, but the best example that I can think of is Kanye West. The way he incorporates electronic music with his hip-hop lyrics is really interesting. For example, when he used some sound from Daft Punk. It was an odd choice because the genre's are so different, but he made it work. He is one of those artists who can continuously reinvent himself, gaining new fan bases, while maintaining the old fan bases.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the discussion about the RIAA, I get why they are trying to crack down on illegal downloading of music, but I agree with b.fonville that all they are really doing is scaring the public. But the lawsuits are definitely real. In fact, one of my best friends was caught illegally downloading music from Napster and she had to erase all the music from her computer or she would have possibly been prosecuted. The truth of the matter is that RIAA can threaten all they want, but there are still so many domains for people to download music for free. And I think artists want you to download their music. On average, I think an artist makes only 7% off their albums. So, the majority of their paycheck comes from touring. Well, if the public doesn't buy your album, then what makes you think they will come to your concert? The answer is...they won't. Free music allows the public to sample an artist's gift. I think most artist's agree that they would rather have their album's discussed by a lot of people then hardly any...the best way to gain a larger fan base is to allow people to get your music for free. The only people that will actually lose some money are the record companies but honestly, they have so much money that I highly doubt they would even notice if they lost a few bucks here and there.
As an artist myself, I feel that to a certain extent music and images should be shared on the internet to promote further advertisement.
ReplyDeleteIn a utilitarian mindset, it all depends on cost/benefit. I agree with Emily that in some cases the uplift someone receives from file sharing may outweigh the costs to producers. Yet, it is difficult to draw a line in order to still help promote sustainable art, which in this day in age, is quite difficult.
I agree with the general opinion that sharing music should be considered illegal. Our economy is based on a free market that is determined by what consumers want and what the producers can create. Although some critics would say that popular artists make enough money so depriving them of the profit of a CD wouldn't make a difference, such profits make a huge contribution to aspiring artists who haven't reached that level of fame. By allowing free copies of works to go unmonitored and unpunished is to take away the incentive and drive for creativity - that is, monetary compensation. Without monetary exchange and regulation for these goods, it also presents a danger to the market because giving items away for free leaves no trace on what is in demand - thus producers can't accommodate what the customers want.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very controversial topic. It is interesting to think about how most artists make the majority of their income from going on tour and concerts, rather than CD's. However, there are other people that contribute to the making of CD's and that is part of their income. Either way, somebody is getting robbed of their hard earned dollar. That being said, I agree with the fact that sharing music being illegal. I think when it comes to this topic it is interesting to think about the sharing of Microsoft Office that I had to buy for my Apple computer. I actually split the cost with two of my friends because it was $100! (Please don't tell on me!) At the time I did not realize that was not allowed or even illegal until after taking this class. In cases like that I am torn in what I believe. Part of me wants to do what is considered "ethical" and say it is not okay, however, for the sake of saving money I don't necessarily feel that way. How do you all feel about that?
ReplyDeleteWhile this issue is controversial and varies from person to person, it is one where society as a whole would never agree no matter how many debates and valid points are made. In the eyes of a musician and people who can empathize with the artists, it is absolutely wrong to steal the achievements that they have worked hard for. It is especially wrong when that is their career and ways of making a living. In the eyes of other civilians, it is not a huge deal to download a song if you want to listen to it or copy and paste a picture you need for a project. These people still make more than enough money to sustain themselves, so sharing one file would not hurt. As this can go both ways, I would think sharing files should not be illegal. The way the system runs now has been successful and useful to everyday people for many years. Sharing movies and music does not strip producers and artists of their credit, either. If anything, the ability to share their work increases their fame and publicity, so it is actually an asset to their industry.
ReplyDeleteMany of these points are good, but I have to agree with the few that say it should be illegal. I really think its impossible to justify it because someone can't afford it. It opens up a lot of debate because just if they can't afford something doesn't mean its right to get it for free. First the artists do need to make an income and if everyone thinks its okay to rip them off just a few dollars those few dollars will add up. Secondly how are you going to justify who can afford it and who can't? I think its impossible to call it a crime for someone with money to steal songs, but for someone who isn't as well off steals a song its okay. Relating this to class it would fall under Kantianism which peoples actions ought to be guided by moral laws and that these moral laws are universal...stealing is wrong, so sharing music is isn't moral.
ReplyDeleteSociety will never come to a unanimous agreement on such issues. While artists do make the majority of their money on tour, many other industries lose money from illegal downloads. For example, record labels do not pay cover artist and designers the same pension ratio in past years because many consumers never even view these images. If a song or movie clip is downloaded from a site such as BearShare- the album work is never viewed. This is just one industry that is often overlooked when issues of illegal downloads are discussed. Conversely, illegal downloads often initiate interest in an artist or group. Many consumers may not be interested in purchasing a song of an unknown artist; however, if they can obtain it for free they will. Such action may then spur further interest. Like many of the above posts have mentioned, these benefits often create publicity and fame. Technology to assist in the possibility of downloading illegally will not go away, thus it is up to records labels and media companies to create additional revenue streams and move along with available technology.
ReplyDeleteKbilzi brings up a valid point that I always bring up when discussing this topic. Without the illegal downloading and music unrightfully being placed on YouTube, artists would not receive as much recognition and awareness as they do. These free practices allow society to look around and explore different artists and genres of music. I would think that YouTube, which allows for word-of-mouth distribution, generates more buzz for these artists. Artists do not completely lose with these practices.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good point and I would be lying if I said I have not gone back and forth over what I think about this dilemma a million times. I still really haven't decided what exactly my position is over the subject. I firmly do believe that redistributing works that are not your own is wrong 100%, but what if you clearly cite/acknowledge the work as that of the rightful artist? Of course I would not condone this for pay, but on the case of burning CD's or downloading other's iTunes or such, I think can be okay. Whether or not the artist gets direct pay for that piece I think is irrelevant, because however it is obtained, the artist gets its name out there with its product. I think that is what is valuable. As many other people have stated, it actually helps artists to become known and I think that that is the real reward in the long term.
ReplyDeleteI think sharing it should be illegal because it is technically stealing. However, I cannot say that I haven't done it. I do feel that it shouldn't be as expensive, I do not think that a song is worth a dollar. I use another website where each song is at most 15 cents. Off of that website, I do not mind paying for the music, because it is worth my money. Especially for me, I do not always listen to every song I own, so spending 20 dollars on 20 songs that I will listen to only a few times isn't worth it for me. I'm not actually sure if the website I use is legal, but it is something that makes me feel as if I am not doing something wrong, but I still give my money to the artist somehow.
ReplyDeleteWith reguards to the question of sharing music with a friend which can't afford it...I think that it doesn't hurt the music company since the friend would not have bought the music anyway. The friend benefits by helping their spirits, and can also help the company by spreading the word, or advertising, the song to other people who may buy the song. If this ethical issue is weighed using utilitarianism I think this is moral.
ReplyDeleteI understand that musicians and record companies make their money by selling music, and with the digital age this industry has taken a large hit. This is an industry that will see much more change as technology changes.