So I mentioned before that a lot of the internet issues that exist today are basically caused by our fear of organizations violating net neutrality for unethical advantages in other fields of society. This is very thinly trying to not say that the RIAA are jerks. I refuse to be unbiased on this one. For over a decade, I have watched this battle on music copyrights escalate, and it has just gotten worse and worse. The escalation has been rather one sided, in my opinion. Though technical advances have occurred, the only real escalation from the downloaders has been what we can download in addition to music. The RIAA and MPAA on the other hand have become more and more draconian in their attempts to stem piracy. After reading a list of things that these companies have said and done, I have come to the conclusion that these organizations are actively causing suffering of their consumers for the sake of making profit. This to me speaks of certain lack of ethics and morals with the decision makers of these organizations.
This opens quite an interesting thought, and I feel it traces back to the old story of Robin Hood. It may not be legal, but fighting this evil is right. I think a lot of people out there justify downloading in that light. I've seen so many people take the title of pirate, and wear it proudly. I've also seen this rash of "coping isn't stealing" videos going around, and I think it's complete BS. The person you copy the song from isn't the person you're stealing from. Let's see you try that defense with counterfeiting and see how well you fare. I for one cannot see why there is a debate on this. Long story short, there is no magical defense that will make downloading content that has been produced for purchase a moral act. Movies that you don't want to buy, can be rented. If you only want one good song from a CD that is full of crap, you can get the song from iTunes or one of their competitors. If you don't want to give money to an organization that you feel is corrupt and evil, then the proper way of doing things is to do without. People who justify downloading are akin to a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and just keeps the money for himself, or a Robin Hood who feel good about what he does because he gives 10% of his loot to the poor. The idea doesn't fully fly.
The response from these companies isn't totally insane either, it's just outside of intelligence and good taste. A friend of mine addressed this on his site, and it makes sense. I don't really rag on the RIAA for trying to make people think twice about downloading copyrighted material, I rag on them for trying to manipulating statistics, using the debate as a platform to make money, attacking people via their ISPs, and so forth and so on. As I said, I don't mind the idea of making a particular action so costly that no one would do it, but I do mind using the idea as a way to make a quick buck. Their attempts to clarify law on the matter are also thinly veiled attempts to cement themselves into the world and maintain a monopoly on an outdated business model. It's comical in a way that only an over sized bureaucratic entity is able to provide. However, all this does is complicated the issue. Two wrongs never make a right, it just makes both people have reason to blame the other and not blame themselves.
Now I'm not a saint when it comes to this issue, nor am I going to be an absolute hard-ass. If you want to listen to a song once in a while, or just want to listen to it once or twice, then by all means, load up a video that uses the song. If you are trying to find a new band that you will like, feel free to download their album. All I'm saying is that until you pay money for listening to the music, then you are receiving a product you did not pay for. All that's really needed to understand where I am coming from is a basic understanding of exactly how commerce works. Remember how I said that I wouldn't paint everyone in the industry with a single brush? That's because musical production requires a lot of trained personnel. Even the most low tech studio I've ever seen, needed a trained person to mix and balance the artist's recordings. Then there are people involved in convincing stores to carry the product. I do believe in marketing, and its benefits to the world. Don't forget factory workers who do the mass production. Hell, all of these people deserve all the money they get. I'm not saying it balances out, but I do think that if you like the work an artist did, then all the people involved in the creation of it should be paid.
What is all boils down to is personal responsibility. While the corporation running the industry is fairly evil, that never gives us right to do evil back. If you receive a song that was meant to be purchased, and you like it, purchase it. If you don't like it, delete it. If you want to listen to it, but don't like it enough to buy it, make a decision and stop waffling. To all those people like me, who download music to discover new artists, make certain that you follow through and actually buy the music. I am guilty here, but it doesn't change the fact that I know what I should be doing to be in the right. If you dislike the RIAA, and their practices, then protest, start an activist group or buy CC. At the end of the day, I don't think of a pirate as an evil person stealing from hard working musicians, I think of them as Average Joes who are just too lazy to follow through on doing the right thing, and if we stop giving the RIAA reasons to do stupid shit, then maybe the law would back us up once in a while.
