Adri's Audio » Music piracy and its effects on the music industry

Taken Tunes: Causes, Effects, and Ethics of Music Piracy

For centuries, music has been a form of self expression and the center of different groups of people. Celebrations of civilizations include some form of music to bring together the masses. In the 20th century the only form of consuming music was through CD’s, cassette tapes, records, or radio. People purchased music, and the industry boomed. When the year 2000 hit, the smooth running industry was faced with an issue still relevant today. Music piracy, as some like to call it, is where people obtain music without paying for it. With the introduction of the internet, ways to share media emerged that alarmed many people. Piracy has been proven detrimental to the music industry and is morally questionable. Some may assume their actions are harmless, but the negative effects have hurt artists both big and small.

Determining how ethical and legal music piracy is demands an understanding of the events leading up to the 2000’s. Music is produced with an expected income, which is how musicians thrived prior to music piracy. David Spitz and Starling Hunter noted in their works that an 18 year old college dropout, Shawn Fanning created a service where users could share music online. The site allowed for users to upload audio files to an application known as Napster. Once music was uploaded to the site, others could download these files for free. Fanning did not come up with the idea alone, nor did he work solo in creating the site. With the help of a programmer by the name of Sean Parker, the two created a site to meet the demands of young people at the time (Spitz and Hunter, p. 171). The news of this application spread like wildfire, and many people favored piracy over buying music. Musicians and record labels were extremely alarmed, as copyrighted music was now accessible for free. Many questioned how the law protected artists, as what was in place seemed unsuccessful. They were appalled by the thought of they’re work readily accessible through computers, and artists like “...Metallica and Limp Bizkit also found almost every song they ever released obtainable for free on Napster.” (Langenderfer and Cook, p. 281). Given the severity of this issue, the music industry scrambled to find a solution. To musicians this was an unethical act, but pirates clearly did not care.

A study done by four professors from Florida identified the biggest demographic of music pirates to be college aged individuals. According to a study conducted by the lead author William Kinnally and his colleagues, there were five reasons identified that college students pirate. From most to least popular, they found “1 entertainment/pass time; 2 convenience/economic utility; 3 information-seeking; 4 storage utility; and 5 social interaction.” (Kinnally et al., 902). Entertainment as the first reason is shocking, as it is an unusual act in one's free time. People tend to have more satisfaction for products when they get it for a low price, explaining economic utility as a driving factor. Similarly, college can be stressful socially, and having a commonality between peers provides a talking point. Especially music, which has been an enormous part of people's lives for decades.

These authors also note music affinity, a way for researchers to determine a person's attitude regarding music. Within their research, the authors noted “The correlations between music affinity and downloading motives indicate that music fans are more likely to be motivated to download music for fun, to expand their musical horizons and as an experience to talk about with friends. Similarly, they are not particularly concerned about the cost or convenience associated with acquiring music.” (Kinnally et al., 907). It is understandable that an individual deeply interested in music will demand more than those who listen less frequently. As said before, having a topic to talk with peers about is enough to motivate college students to pirate music. It is compelling that these authors find those who appreciate music will download music, even when they would be willing to purchase it. This could very much be due to the convenience factor of why college students pirate.

Even with the reasons college students pirate, the justifications do not seem to add up. Most people will agree it is wrong in a moral sense, but music pirates tend to think otherwise. Specifically, they refuse to think their actions are immoral. In a study done by two professors from University College Dublin, the morals of music pirates were examined. With studying the ethics, the authors (Bonner and O’Higgins) noted the limitation of getting participants to tell the truth about how much they pirate. Even so, the study provided profound insights as to how music pirates view the action. While questioning participants, the authors concluded that “Individuals who illegally download will justify their illegal downloading habits thus eliminating any guilt they may feel regarding such activity.” (Bonner and O’Higgins, p. 1343). Most illegal downloaders are well aware that pirating music is morally incorrect as per questions asked by the researchers. A person might think stealing is wrong, but they chose to go through with the action and convince themselves it was acceptable to do so. If a pirate's friend was to do something they perceived as immoral, they would be against the action and state it is wrong. But once they perform the same action, they force themselves to think it's fine for them to do. This is the same thing as a hypocrite telling others not to steal, and that person then stealing. People know piracy is bad, and continue to make excuses for their actions. In simpler terms, pirates gaslight themselves into thinking their actions are acceptable, even when they know better.

Among other findings, the authors noted that if pirates had a strong appreciation for a musician, they tend to have more feelings of guilt about pirating the music (Bonner and O’Higgins, p. 1344). The two note how whether or not an individual “idolizes” a band determines the likelihood to pirate. Interpreting this evidence can lead readers to believe that as love for a band increases, the likelihood of pirating that music will decrease due to a feeling of guilt. Similarly, if the person has neutral or negative opinions on a band, they would have little problem pirating that band's music. Complementing the above research from Kinnally et al., Bonner and O’Higgins agree that college students tend to be the biggest demographic of pirates due to how savvy they are with the internet and have many different people to share music tastes with in college (Bonner and O’Higgins, p. 1346).

It has been shown that pirates know the action is immoral, yet continue to do so. College students find this to be a great avenue in terms of saving money and conversing with friends about it. While consumers think it's wonderful, musicians and record labels express their concern. Due to much confusion about the effects of piracy, studies were created to explore the effects on record sales. Stan Liebowitz wrote a paper called “How Much of the Decline in Sound Recording Sales Is Due to File-Sharing?”, which provided insight to how pirating allowed consumers to avoid paying for music. In his paper, Liebowitz notes how filetype converters and CD burners drastically changed the situation “For example, as illicitly downloaded files become better substitutes for legitimate versions (because of the increased penetration of MP3 players, say), both the decline in legitimate sales and the decline in sales due to file-sharing will become larger even if the amount of file-sharing were to remain constant.” (Liebowitz, p. 16). The only file presentable to CD used to be a WAV file, and many people did not own a CD burner. But as this item became commonly used, the author suggests this as a foolproof way to not pay for music.

After obtaining the desired songs from Napster, individuals could convert the MP3 they downloaded into a WAV file, and transfer them to a CD. To a young college student, this may seem positive because they can customize a playlist of all their favorite tunes without listening to an entire album. While file sharing and declining sales are related, there seems to be drastic differences between their numbers. If file sharing and illegal downloading is on the rise combined with decreased sales, it is understandable to believe the decline in sales to be an effect of file sharing. Although, the author notes that other factors can be at play to explain the drop in sales. It is possible that fans do not like an artist anymore, or the music is becoming less popular than it used to be.

Other studies find demand and supply remained constant in Germany and America after Napster emerged, but sales continue seeing a decline (Waldfogel, 101). Waldfogel additionally notes that record stores sell CD’s at overpriced rates, which may lead consumers to pirate. Alejandro Zentner also studied the effect of piracy on sales, and his work is widely known among professionals exploring this topic. In his own studies, he interviewed 500 students from a university. According to his research, file sharing was such a popular activity that some colleges had to ban Napster when internet servers were unable to handle it. Around that same college, local record shops experienced a decline in sales. He found “The results suggest that peer-to-peer usage reduces the probability of buying music by 30 percent.” (Zentner, 63). With both pieces of evidence, it can be concluded that file sharing has a negative impact on sales. These statistics provide undeniable evidence of the decline of music sales.

Given the evidence up to this point it would be simple to conclude that piracy is wrong, as it is immoral and declines music sales. Those for music piracy have noted file sharing to help artists, because individuals can sample music before choosing to buy it. Piracy takes money from artists big and small, but those for piracy claim it has the potential to help small artists. Some claim due to sampling music before buying, smaller artists are given an advantage. While this is an understandable take, there is little data to support this claim. Additionally, Liebowitz found evidence suggesting otherwise. He found that artists are negatively impacted by piracy, and notes the decline in sales that record shops experience because of piracy. He gives an example that if a store sells 10 CD’s the year piracy started, the next year they only sell 8 (Liebowitz, p. 22). This directly combates all the claims against piracy helping sales.

Another counterclaim questioned how music piracy is treated in court. Ben Jones, an engineer turned journalist, is adamant that copyright infringement is not theft. In his work, he notes that copyright infringement “....would be treated as theft, dealt with as theft, and 'copyright infringement' wouldn't exist at all.” (Jones, 5). A case treated as theft would take a criminal trial, which is not necessarily what the music industry would want. In this case a jury would decide what party was guilty, and could possibly have the ruling turn in favor of the copyright infringers. Instead a civil trial would take place, which can take years to finally appear in a courtroom. Jones notes this and leads readers to wonder; is it really theft if not taken to trial as theft?

All these ideas and standpoints came together when Napster went to court against A&M Records. During the trial, it was noted that some sites directly aided in copyright infringement while others did not. In the case of Napster the site “...is accused of indirect copyright infringement.” (Langenderfer and Cook, p. 282). Napster provides people with a way to share, but is not necessarily concerned with whether a shared file is authorized. While the site does not directly infringe, it is clear the creators of the site know what resource they are providing. The authors note that “Napster, in contrast, by monitoring the file exchange process, participated in the infringing act. Napster therefore played a more important role in the infringement than merely providing the enabling technology.” (Langenderfer and Cook, p. 285), and “Had Napster simply sold software that enabled file sharing but required no further Napster intervention, the result might have been different.” (Langenderfer and Cook, p. 285). There were claims suggesting Napter was helping music sales, but the RCAA official called in to testify had direct evidence to dispute that. After this trial and a few others, Napster was finally shut down due to an order of the court. Even though it was the most popular, the authors note that many other file sharing services emerged in its place.

Music Piracy has shaped the industry into what it is today. Streaming services would not have appeared without the need for a better alternative to pirating music, but the topic is still worth understanding. Research shows that piracy is morally wrong. Even people who pirate music confirm they know better, but continue to take music anyway. Despite claims that music sampling via file sharing helps sales and smaller artists, there was a large body of evidence to suggest otherwise. The lawsuits against Napster and other sites have demanded for further protection of artists through copyright laws, and helped find a solution for the future. Similar peer-to-peer sites continue to allow music pirates to do what they do best, but there are now laws and policies in action to further prevent musicians from the negative effects of music piracy.

Works Cited

Bonner, S., & O’Higgins, E. “Music Piracy: Ethical Perspectives.” 19 October 2010. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00251741011082099/full/html. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Jones, Ben. “Copyright Infringement and Theft – the Difference * Torrentfreak.” Go to TorrentFreak., 27 Aug. 2011, torrentfreak.com/copyright-infringement-and-theft-%E2%80%93-the-difference-110827/. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Kinnally, William, et al. “Getting up on the Download: College Students’ Motivations for Acquiring Music via the Web.” NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, vol. 10, no. 6, Dec. 2008, pp. 893–913. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1177/1461444808096250. Accessed 13 July 2024.

Langenderfer, Jeff, and Don Lloyd Cook. “Copyright Policies and Issues Raised by A&M Records v. Napster: ‘The Shot Heard 'Round the World’ or ‘Not with a Bang but a Whimper?’” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol. 20, no. 2, 2001, pp. 280–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000594. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Liebowitz, Stan J. “How Much of the Decline in Sound Recording Sales Is Due to File-Sharing?” Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 40, no. 1, 2016, pp. 13–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44281823. Accessed 13 July 2024.

Spitz, David, and Starling D. Hunter. “Contested Codes: The Social Construction of Napster.” Information Society, vol. 21, no. 3, July 2005, pp. 169–80. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1080/01972240490951890. Accessed 13 July 2024.

Waldfogel, Joel. “Music Piracy and Its Effects on Demand, Supply, and Welfare.” Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 12, no. 1, 2012, pp. 91–110. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/663157. Accessed 13 July 2024.

Zentner, Alejandro. “Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases.” The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 49, no. 1, 2006, pp. 63–90. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/501082. Accessed 13 July 2024.

Music piracy and its effects on the music industry

Location

Contact

Menu

Follow my socials!