Downloading Violation?

Case Study: Internet Piracy and Free Speech

I always thought free speech involved being able to speak without fear and had nothing to do with money. I never considered “free” as a monetary measurement. I recently discovered that cash becomes involved when one considers copyright issues. For this reason, I believe the only way that illegal downloading violates free speech is when one takes illegal tracks and tries to make a profit by multiplying and selling them. Advocates of such a trend use free speech to turn the Internet into a well of costless media while staunch opponents view the issue as theft. I believe the line should be drawn down the middle—feed both packs of dogs with a little free content and a little paid material.

The romanticized vision of free music implies that you became a musician to spread the word of your music without regard to monetary value. It does not matter if money is made; only that art is shared. But with no physical profit, artists would have to keep their day jobs and the struggle for inspiration would arise. This would either dampen the spirit of the music industry or open the flood gates for people who think themselves entertainers.

I believe that in a Utopian society internet downloading should be partially costless. Let the most famous material, which is leaked out anyway and often the material that is illegally downloaded, stand apart from lesser known work. The popular hits should be free, letting the masses obtain what is currently trending and enjoy prevalent music as a global village free of charge. Songs, albums, and artists that are not chart-toppers should be purchased. People can listen to a sampling of popular music for free and if they like what they hear, they can buy more. In the words of Lev Grossman, “The legit market feeds off the black market.” In this case, the paid market feeds off the free market. This also addresses the cash made by musicians and divvies it up more evenly, taking the money that famous artists would be making and handing it to aspiring newcomers.

CNN’s article says “In a culture without copyright, only the rich, or the government-sponsored, could be this culture's full-time creator.” I do not think that copyrighting is an issue if a handful of an artist’s songs are available for free. When you download a song the work still retains the signature stamp of the artist. If a few chart-toppers can be downloaded without cost, the music would still be protected under copyright law. Just because the copies are free does not mean that the original is ownerless. The downloader would not be downloading for distribution or to make a profit—the music industry can still watermark the art that comes from within. Many popular artists throw their names into their songs, referencing themselves as a trademark tool to claim their work.

No matter what the legalities, if people can download for free, they will. Why should one person be afraid of getting busted for illegal downloading when there are millions of people who do the same thing? Illegal downloaders justify their actions through availability and sheer numbers. If companies and artists chose a selection of music to offer for free then charge (at reduced rates, as offered in the Torrent Freak article—songs are expensive) for the rest, it might cut down on Internet Piracy.