Arguments for and against Digital Piracy - Essay Example

Arguments For and Against Digital Piracy Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Understanding Digital Piracy 3 Arguments for Digital Piracy 4 Music Promotion 4 Convenience 5 High Cost of Original Music 5 Digital Piracy Does Not Hurt 6 Arguments against Digital Piracy 6 Unethical Act 6 Digital Piracy as a Criminal Act 7 Low Quality/Malware 7 Conclusion 8 References 9 Abstract The trendy online sharing of music without legal authorisation is one of the issues that have generated various arguments and debates; whether it is right or wrong. Most people, in the recent past have resorted to the free music downloading sites as their primary sources of music products including video ad songs. Pirates have also, with the use of technology, found it easy to reproduce music without the permission of the original producers. This has seen the development of various agreements that either support or refute what has been termed as ‘digital piracy’. The perspectives argue that digital piracy helps in distribution and promotion of music. It is also convenient and at the same time cheap to access. However, those who go against this act believe it is both a criminal and unethical act that needs to be reproved very seriously. This report seeks to comprehensively discuss these arguments based on literature information constituted in various sources. A conclusion generated from the evidence presented will be drawn. Introduction In the light of growing technology, many industries have been extensively bolstered by the ever advancing knowledge on how to carry out things. The music industry is one of the sectors that have received a great boost since this era of enlightenment has seen myriad improvements in information and communication (Kernfeld, 2011: 116). As a matter of fact, the social dynamics and scientific revolutions that have been evidenced in the recent past are palpable in the music and entertainment arena. The impacts information technology has had are undoubtedly profound. Unlike in the past, music fans in the world can easily share tunes they are passionate about globally through various platforms that technology has brought. For example, someone in Mexico can access the internet and download a song produced in Germany without physically moving to the location it was produced as long as it has been uploaded or shared via internet. This practice of music sharing is a reality that happens daily; it cannot be disputed. The question of whether it is right or wrong to share music (also known as digital piracy) without authorisation, therefore, comes up. According to Meyer (2014: 101), many arguments have been forwarded that either support or criticise unauthorised music sharing both submitting their reasons with arguably sound justifications. It is significant to analyse comprehensively these arguments before coming up with conclusive remarks concerning this topical issue. Understanding Digital Piracy Although it is illegal in most nations for an individual or organisation to engage in digital piracy, this act has been going on for quite some time now. Meyer (2014: 66) defines digital piracy as an unlawful act of copying, downloading of sharing of a person’s or organisation’s music without their consent. The increased world population can now access information technology, and this has largely facilitated unwarranted music sharing. Virtually all countries condemn music piracy and laws and regulations have been put in place to protect producers from losing their creative works to unauthorised reproducers. Digital piracy is seen by many as a form of music piracy which has been driven by the development of information technology including internet. Individuals are able to upload and download music without the legal permission consented by the original producer(s). This problem has drawn the attention of several people thereby creating diverse arguments in response to the question of digital piracy. Those that support or disprove unauthorised sharing of music have constructed their arguments based on various grounds. Arguments for Digital Piracy Various arguments and perspectives have come up to support strongly music sharing even when it is not authorised. These perspectives have forwarded their arguments passionately clinging on rooting strongly on the ground that music sharing should not be criminalized as it is in various nations. The arguments include the following: Music Promotion There are arguments that through music sharing (authorised or not), the producer’s work gets promoted and many audiences can be reached to listen to the songs. It is believed, from this perspective, that it is pointless to criminalise an authorised music sharing because this, it is broadcasted to larger populations which would not have even known such music exist. The producers, therefore, do not have to incur expenses when they can find free marketing for their music. Digital pirates ought to be paid instead of condemning them as they are the primary agents of this music. For example, YouTube is a popular website where people download music they prefer even those whose producers have not uploaded. Through this, the fame of the producers grows if the songs or video clips attract most audiences who retrieve these products. According to Curley (2012: 87), most of the music (over 80%) produced in the United States reach the whole globe through online platforms that allow for sharing. Convenience Consequently, other perspectives have argued that the distribution of music is much more facilitated when it is shared on the digital platforms rather than waiting for the producers. From this perspective, it is much faster to access music when people are allowed to share them freely. It is contended that official music sites do jams especially when some song has been produced and everyone is fighting to download it. It becomes easier and convenient when the few who got it fast can share it with the rest through the internet sites such as YouTube among others. This allows for its quick broadcast; something that would not happen if every listener were to access it from the same point. For example, for several years, the late Michael Jackson’s fans complained about the ‘traffic’ experienced on his site whenever he released a song. Having alternative sources that could fasten the spread of his music was necessary (Hunnewell, 2008: 110). High Cost of Original Music As a matter of fact, producers make music so they may earn some cash and sustain their livelihoods. The production costs as well as other expenses incurred make the whole process costly. It implies that these expenses must be reflected on the consumers through charging relatively high fees before this music is availed. Most people have argued that sharing music freely reduces this cost that would have otherwise been incurred if the audiences were to buy the music CDs or access them directly from the producers. Digital piracy is, therefore, seen as cost-reducing tact that helps consumers (even those who cannot afford) to access the music they would love to listen to. Digital Piracy Does Not Hurt Most people who engage in this practice justify their actions with claims that it does not hurt anyone to pirate or share music. It is believed that music producers are rich and large companies which cannot feel the pinch of a mere music sharing. Over 70% of internet users agree they favour digital piracy as they find nothing wrong with it. About two-thirds of online users have downloaded music they wanted illegally. This argument been criticised by many as counterarguments have risen to explain that young rising musicians cannot develop if the music they produce cannot sell simply because they were pirated (Curley, 2012: 101). Arguments against Digital Piracy In equal measure, various perspectives have risen up to oppose digital piracy or unauthorised sharing of music on the internet. More often than not, music producers have decried the increasing cases of digital piracy stating that they make great losses when their music are reproduced rendering them irrelevant. These are some of the reasons why various stakeholders I the music industry have stepped up their campaign against digital piracy as they highlight various dangers this practice brings in the music industry and the society at large (Sinnreich, 2013: 100). Unethical Act Among the key reasons why digital piracy is fought against is the conception that it is an unethical act. Proponents of this perspective claim that reproducing or sharing of a person’s property without their consent is outright stealing. Stealing is ethically rebuked and this makes digital piracy an undesirable act that should be rebuked. Music production is a business that should bring profit to those who invest in it. Profits cannot be realised if that which is meant to be sold have been distributed freely to the target customers. It is therefore, a moral/ethical concern that should be looked at from moral angles. Hunnewell (2008: 93) argues that it is acceptable to download and share music from those sites and platforms that the music owners approve. However, downloading from pirates who the original producers do not know about is ethically wrong. Conducts of pirating or sharing people’s music without their permission are plainly against the moral values that champion for honesty, integrity and respect. Digital Piracy as a Criminal Act Most governments have provided copyright laws that seek to protect the work of genuine producers from being pirated. Those who view digital piracy as a criminal act have claimed that just like any other violation of law, failing to abide by these laws is tantamount to criminality. For example, the British government has laws that regulate music production and cuts out pirates from copying other people’s music. Anyone found to be involved in reproducing music without the legal permission of the owner can be prosecuted in the court of law (Johns, 2009: 79). Low Quality/Malware Arguments have been forwarded that question the quality of the music products shared on the internet by unauthorised sources. In most cases, the pirated music is never the exact quality as the original ones and this makes the consumers to be supplied with very low quality that do not match the producers’ standards. For example, the pirates would opt to sell their copied music at cheap prices since they incur production costs. On the other hand, the original producer’s commitment to supplying consumers with high quality products makes them use a lot of production materials thereby making them a little bit expensive. Cases of malware and computer virus are common when files are shared via online platforms (Sinnreich, 2013: 87). Conclusion The advancement of information technology is the primary expediter of digital piracy. As seen, unauthorised music sharing is a pandemic that has infested the music industry and efforts to control it have not born fruits despite the many laws and regulations that have been set in different nations. Various arguments (both pro and anti) have come up to explain ad address some of the issues relating to this matter. There are perspectives that support digital pirating with explanations that it is not only convenient for the consumers but it also works to promote music producers. Those who are against this practice have argued that it violates not only the legal provisions but also the ethical principles that outline integrity and honesty. This issue is crucial and effective antidote should be brought forward to harness these two contrasting positions. References Curley, R. (2012) Issues in cyberspace from privacy to piracy, New York, Britannica Educational Pub. Hunnewell, L. (2008) Internet piracy, Edina, Minn, ABDO Pub. Co. Johns, A. (2009) Piracy the intellectual property wars from Gutenberg to Gates, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.  Kernfeld, B.D. (2011) Pop song piracy: disobedient music distribution since 1929, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Meyer, S. (2014) Understanding digital piracy, New York, Rosen Publishings Rosen Central. Sinnreich, A. (2013) The piracy crusade: how the music industrys war on sharing destroys markets and erodes civil liberties, Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press. Read More