Music Downloading Has a Price Tag

December 9th, 2008
Writing & American Rhetoric (Honors)
Maryville University

Music Downloading Has a Price Tag

         Imagine that you are browsing through some CDs at a store and out of the corner of your eye, you see someone slip a CD into their pocket. You recognize this as stealing; the person is taking something that costs money without paying for it. You tell yourself that you would never do something like that. Yet later that night when you get home, you log on to your computer and begin using Limewire to download songs for free. How are these two scenarios different? They aren’t. In both cases, a person is getting something for free that they would ordinarily have to pay for. In both cases, a person is stealing. The second case, however, isn’t as blatant as the first, which is probably why people find it hard to believe that both scenarios are actually the same. Also referred to as piracy and file-sharing, illegal music downloading contributes to the 4.2 billion dollars that the record industry loses each year (Levin, Dato-on, and Manolis). Currently it is illegal to download music without paying for it; however, there are estimated to be 100 million users of sharing software and 2.6 billion illegal file transfers each month (Ouellet).

         To understand why illegal music downloading is such a problem, one must first understand why people do it. One might think that it’s simply because illegal music downloading is free and people rarely get caught. However, research shows that there is another, more important factor that leads people to illegally download music. A study done by Robert LaRose and Junghyun Kim reports that “downloaders…seem to be more motivated by the social aspect of trading and sharing music with other music enthusiasts rather than by the proposition of saving money on music purchase.” If one takes this information into account, then one can easily see why illegally downloading music is such a problem. It is not just a “fad” of this generation– it’s a social behavior that is fueled by increasing new technology such as high-speed Internet and easy access to computers, as well as the fact that it poses less risk than physically stealing a CD from a store.

         Record companies have made many attempts to halt this habit; however, it seems they have been mostly unsuccessful. The largest and perhaps most successful measure is legal action. Record companies have begun filing lawsuits against large file-sharing systems like Napster and also against individual users of similar peer-to-peer sites. However, there are so many sites and users that it is nearly impossible to shut them all down. Also, a new technological innovation called Gnutella produces another large problem: because Gnutella is a network, instead of simply a server, it’s hard for the government to pinpoint, which is probably why peer-to-peer file sharing programs like Limewire still exist but Napster does not (Jones and Lenhart).

         Because it is so difficult to stop illegal music downloading, some record companies have shifted their focus to prevention. Several record companies tried a campaign which used pop stars to dissuade teens from downloading. A survey on the effectiveness of this campaign, however, showed that out of the 100 people surveyed, only two would stop downloading, and on the other end of the spectrum, 61 people claimed the ads would have no effect on them (Colwell). An article in the Journal of Consumer Behavior suggests that perhaps the record industry should aim ads at consumers who are new to illegal music downloading because they are more likely to stop downloading than the ones who illegally download music frequently (Levin, Dato-on, and Manolis). Another tactic to reduce the number of illegal downloads is to offer subscription and pay-per-song services like Rhapsody and iTunes. Rhapsody allows users to pay a certain fee each month and get unlimited downloads, while iTunes lets consumers buy either single songs or full CDs. However, they have drawbacks as well. In “How To Go Legit,” Barbara Kiviat says this about legal downloading alternatives: “These online stores all sell digital tunes, but their prices, offerings, and access vary. You won’t get arrested for shopping-but you may get a headache” (qtd. in Cullen).

         There are several popular arguments in favor of illegal music downloading. “Downloading Not All Bad” offers a large number of statistics that seem to prove illegal music downloading may have positive effects on the record industry as opposed to negative ones. A survey in the article showed that out of the participants, “eighty-five percent are more likely to buy an artist's music if they were able to sample it online first” and “seventy-two percent said they believe peer-to-peer sites actually expand their overall musical horizons, leading them to buy more music in physical retail stores” (“Downloading Music Not All Bad”). I could agree with this because I know people who have used Limewire to sample a new artist’s song before buying the CD. There’s nothing worse than spending ten dollars on a CD and liking only one song on it. At least that’s one way illegal music downloaders rationalize their actions.

         Another argument to justify this habit is that illegal music downloading has no tangible effect on the music market, a conclusion drawn by Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina and Felix Oberholzer of Harvard Business School. They reason that the recent decline in record sales can be attributed to many different factors, including “poor macroeconomic conditions, a reduction in the number of album releases, growing competition from other forms of entertainment such as video games and DVDs…a reduction in music variety stemming from the large consolidation in radio along with the rise of independent promoter fees to gain airplay, and possibly a consumer backlash against record industry tactics” (Oberholzer and Strumpf).

         However valid these arguments, they do not justify the “stealing” that occurs when one downloads a song. Producing music is an artist’s job; by illegally downloading songs, one is cheating an artist of their hard-earned paycheck. While some may argue that artists have a large enough salary, and that by downloading a few songs they aren’t going to cause the market any serious losses, it’s easy to see how the record industry would suffer if everyone had this mindset. According to an article by Jean-François Ouellet, “in the US, 681 million CDs and cassettes were sold in 2002 as compared to 785 million two years earlier.” Even though the decrease in sales in the record industry cannot be attributed entirely to illegal music downloading, one cannot argue that online piracy has absolutely no effect (Oberholzer and Strumpf).

         Another argument against illegal music downloading is the possible repercussions. There are severe consequences to illegally downloading music, whether or not one is caught. If a person is charged with illegally downloading music, the minimum fee is $750 per song, and this amount can change, depending on the judge’s conclusion about the downloader’s intent. In a 2005 case, a woman was court-ordered to pay $22,500 for 30 songs she had illegally downloaded ("Digital Music Age Yields New Copyright Complexities"). In addition, even if one is not caught, spyware, adware, and viruses can be downloaded onto a computer along with a song without the knowledge of the downloader. Identity theft has also been known to occur as a result of criminals abusing the file-sharing system (Jacob). People who illegally download music at work are putting their business security and customer confidentiality at risk. For example, as reported in an International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) press release, “In September 2007, Citigroup confirmed that it was investigating a data breach where the names, mortgage information and social security numbers from 5,200 customers were inadvertently leaked by an employee using the Limewire P2P application” (Jacob). So the dangers of illegal music downloading are not just limited to legal action.

         The consequences and effects of illegal music downloading aside, the bottom line is that downloading something you do not pay for is stealing, and stealing is against the law. Therefore, no matter how one tries to justify their actions, illegal music downloading is wrong and will continue to be wrong until the law says otherwise.


Works Cited

Colwell, Dara. "Down with Downloads?" Scholastic Math 24 Jan. 2003. EBSCO. MasterFILE
Premier. 27 Oct. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco
host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=9083143&site=ehost-live&scope=site >.

Cullen, Lisa T., Stefanie Friedhoff, Avery Holton, Naeemah Khabir, Jessica Reaves, and Chris
Taylor. "How To Go Legit." Time South Pacific (Australia/New Zealand edition) 22 Sept. 2003: 40-41. EBSCO. Business Source Premier. 29 Oct. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=23456185&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.

"Digital Music Age Yields New Copyright Complexities." Business West 17 Apr. 2006.
EBSCO. MasterFILE Premier. 17 Nov. 2008 <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&an=20598170&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.

"Downloading Music Not All Bad." Chain Store Age Nov. 2003: 64-64. EBSCO. Business
Source Premier. 29 Oct. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?url=http://search
.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=11864824&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.

Jacob, Alex. "The Hidden Dangers of Illegal Downloading." IFPI Press Releases. 2008.
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. 1 Nov. 2008. <http://www.ifpi.org
/content/section_news/20080307.html>.

Jones, Steve, and Amanda Lenhart. "Music Downloading and Listening: Findings from the Pew
Internet and American Life Project." Popular Music & Society 27 (2004): 185-99. EBSCO. Academic Search Premier. 1 Nov. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13308415&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.

LaRose, Robert, and Junghyun Kim. "Share, Steal, or Buy? A Social Cognitive Perspective of
Music Downloading." CyberPsychology & Behavior 10 (2007): 267-77. EBSCO. Academic Search Premier. 29 Oct. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?url=
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25963255&site=...

Levin, Aron M., Mary C. Dato-on, and Chris Manolis. "Deterring Illegal Downloading: The
Effects of Threat Appeals, Past Behavior, Subjective Norms, and Attributions of Harm." Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6 (2007): 111-22. EBSCO. Business Source Premier. 29 Oct. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com
/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=25640227&site=ehost-live&scope=site >.
Oberholzer, Felix, and Koleman Strumpf. "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An
Empirical Affair." Mar. 2004. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 17 Nov. 2008 <http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/filesharing_march2004.pdf>.

Ouellet, Jean-François. "The Purchase Versus Illegal Download of Music by Consumers: The
Influence of Consumer Response towards the Artist and Music." Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 24 (2007): 107-19. EBSCO. Business Source Premier. 29 Oct. 2008. <http://proxy.library.maryville.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=26363444&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.