These days we are now able to download anything from movies, music and games to actual software. People are no longer interested in buying DVDs or CDs and why would they be? If everything you might want is available on a website at the click of a button and cost free, then why would someone want to save up enough money to buy that DVD you’ve been waiting for or that really expensive software? It just seems so primitive now. So while it might be awesome to think that we are able to download anything we wish, have you ever stopped to think of the enterprises that created that software or the artists that poured themselves into making that movie or album? I’m not sure if anyone remembers Napster? It was a music file, peer-to-peer sharing service (much like Bit Torrent) which had a major impact on university students. Its technology allowed music fans to share Mp3 song files – thus leading to music industries accusations of massive copyright violations and eventually its original service was shut down by court order. Record companies are now seeing the Internet as a place where intellectual property is stolen and distributed and are viewing it as some kind of apocalyptic network of thievery. Sort of makes you feel a bit guilty doesn’t it? However, I recently read an article on the crime of downloading and to what extent it is actually hurting album sales. In this article they analysed the direct data of music downloaders over a 17-week period and compared that activity with actual music purchases during that time and they discovered that downloading had no visible effects on sales. While I initially thought this was very strange, the article explained that even though downloading occurs on a huge scale, most of the downloaders are those individuals who were not likely to buy the album even in the absence of file sharing. If one thinks about it, it is similar if someone offers you a free ticket to see a band. In this case you would probably go see that band wouldn’t you? But if there were no free ticket involved, then the chance of you going to see that band is les likely. So after much thought about this and the ethical and legal complications, shouldn’t bands, actors, or who ever it may be, be grateful that people are listening to their music or watching their movies if it isn’t really hurting their sales? Seeing artists speeding around in fancy cars and purchasing million dollar houses doesn’t seem to me like it has a major effect on them either!
3 comments:
all i can say is maybe if downloading was entitled to be able to be referenced or someting then it might have a bit of ethical justification, but hey with technology these days can download a song and you can put to it your own changes and simply tell people who dont have the privelege of sneaking at song before they are realesed that it is yours
when it comes to the concept of downloading, it is obviously clear that ethics is the last thing anyone is prepared to think about. i mean if people continue to smoke while there is a huge DANGER sign on the back of the packet, i highly doubt that people would even spend two seconds of their time to consider ethical values which do not even have a threat to their personal well-being before contemplating downloading any form of material from the web.
I think it depends who you're downloading from as to whether or not it's unethical.
Large multinational bands for example who sell millions of albums are hardly affected. Although they may lose tens of thousands of sales, they still live in luxury mansions and have supercars and travel the world 9hardly a bad lifestyle!!!)
It's the smaller, struggling musicians who are affected... the guys who drive a 19-voetsak citi golf, live in a small flat with 4 other people.
Think of this the next time you download the new "Andy Danger Mix" off Bit Torrent! ;)
Post a Comment