Music Obtained Morally
May 19, 2007When looking to consume music, it is important to act morally. Given the politically charged and complicated subject of music downloads, it is easy to choose the wrong course of action.
Contrary to the predictable knee-jerk interpretations by those at both extreme ends of the music downloading debate, this is neither a lecture on the evils of, nor a rationalized condoning of, what is described as “illegal” file-sharing.
Here are the central planks of my moral position on obtaining music:
1) Boycott Digital Rights Management (DRM):
Paying for music with DRM, which should be called Digital Restrictions management, offers little value over and above paying for bottled air. The selling of content with digital protects flies in the face of the doctrine of first sale. If I pay for a good in a transaction that has been described by the seller as a “sale”, from that that point forward I should obtain total control of the product, aside from giving copies to other people. There should be nothing preventing me from using said product in the way that I choose. Were it be practical to do expect me to do so with a digital product, it should be permitted for me to sell my last copy to a third party, removing all other copies. The act of placing restrictions on my legally obtained copy of song, whether it be from making so many personal copies for personal use, transferring them to the devices of my choice, or using them in other ways I choose, amounts to an egregious violation of my rights as a customer. Furthermore, there appear to be no mechanisms at any of the major music stores that sell DRM’d music to obtain a replacement copy should my song intentionally or unintentionally deactivate itself.
Music rented for a short period of time should obviously have some sort of DRM to enforce the length of the transaction, but the music must be provided with that explicit caveat. So far, services offering music rented as part of a subscription service have done poorly. Also, even rented music should not be trusted, because the rented copy could deactivate itself before the consumer expects it to.
* Music obtained morally is music obtained with no DRM whatsoever.
2) Refuse to pay for or otherwise encourage any record label’s immoral or illegal behaviour:
Recently, Sony was sued as part of a class-action for including a rootkit in their music CDs.
According to Google Define:
A rootkit is a program that runs hidden on a victim’s computer that obtains information about a user’s activities and sends them to either the author of the rootkit or a third party.
This rootkit installed itself irrespective of whether the user agreed or declined that End User License Agreement that appeared when that user inserted the CD into their computer. Such as action represents what is in my opinion an act of wanton vandalism on Sony’s paying customers. Furthermore, it was a flagrant violation of those users’ right to privacy. Sony was effectively spying on its users.
Other immoral acts by record companies involve suing people for copyright violations that were either incapable of committing those acts, or too young to be considered criminals.
Such companies don’t deserve the business of honest customers. They should not even get business indirectly though allofmp3.com, which is legal under Russian law and has attempted to send royalty checks to major record labels (who have refused to cash the cheques).
If you object to the practises of a particular record label and refuse to buy their music, then don’t obtain that music at all. If you download a particular song from a company you’ve chosen to boycott (ex: Sony), then you shouldn’t be listening to their music at all (aside from as background noise in shopping malls, etc). Downloading that music sends the wrong message to the record label you’ve deemed immoral. It tells them there’s demand for their music: demand that they could somehow monetize. This could be done either with a copyright infringement lawsuit, or some sort of government-sanctioned internet tax for music sharing.
* Music obtained morally is music that is not obtained (paid or otherwise) from companies that don’t seek to inflict harm upon their customers.
3) Pay a fair price for music that is offered fairly:
There is no moral justification for downloading music that the copyright holder has not agreed not to share freely. Granted, such legally free music exists, and should not be ignored when making arguments about file sharing. There are also works license under a Creative Commons license. Such works become freely available after 14 years, for any works the copyright holder chooses to license under the Creative Commons.
Record labels who sell music morally deserve financial support for their business. Selling music morally involves:
A) No DRM
B) No rootkits
C) No unfair lawsuits
D) No other immoral behaviour against customers or artists
E) Charging a reasonable price for that music
Music sold at a dollar a track is extravagant. Given the proliferation of independent labels and independent music stores:
* emusic.com
* zunior.com
* magnatune.com
* beatport.com
* and many others…
… it makes no sense to pay top dollar (no pun intended) for music. Independent music (with some notable exceptions) is by and large more innovative, creative and artistic than large record label music.
Also, given the large choice of competing entertainment options, from video games to DVDs to YouTube to blogs, large record label music has no business being this overpriced. It’s proposterous that most DVDs (most of which offer special features) continue to be far cheaper than most music CD’s. It’s also preposterous that the very best video games offer months of continuous entertainment, whereas the best music CD’s have far less continuous value.
* Music obtained morally is music obtained with only a reasonable financial sacrifice according only to fair terms (paid or free) set forth by the copyright holder.
4) Support The Artists:
This is the hardest one of all. Music would be nothing without musicians. However, RIAA rhetoric aside, most musicians are exploited by their record labels. Most of the time, the artist assigns his/her/their full copyrights to their record label.
The only internet music store I know of (I hope there are more) that insists on fair payment for their artists is Magnatune:
It’s the first internet-only record label. According to its FAQ, it offers 50% of album, licensing and merchandising profits go directly to the artist(s) responsible for each album:
http://www.magnatune.com/info/model
* Music obtained morally is music obtained with a view to ensuring the artists are compensated fairly, instead of merely either paying lip service, or believing others’ lip service, to fairly compensating those artists.
