Write a critical analysis of the text in about 600 – 800 words. Stealing is Alwa

Question

Write a critical analysis of the text in about 600 – 800 words.

Stealing is Always Wrong - Unpaid Downloading of Music from the Internet

There are many forms of stealing, from theft of property, muggings and burglaries, to thefts of ideas through plagiarism. Although there are legal sanctions against many forms of stealing, the issue of moral and social sanctions has always been more complex. For example Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor, is held up as a great British hero. Piaskin (1986) suggests that ethical issues are not simply questions of right and wrong but should be regarded as ‘dilemmas’. In this essay, I shall use the example of downloading music from the Internet to highlight these complexities but, contrary to the view held by Piaskin, to argue that in this case, stealing is always wrong.

In recent years, there have been a number of high profile cases against people who have shared music files for free on the Internet. Prior to the development of the Internet, music was similarly shared via home taping. Lee (2006) argues that although home taping is technically legal, no one pursues this as perpetrators cannot be caught. Because it is possible to catch internet file sharers, Lee argues that they are being unfairly punished. Whilst there may be a practical side to this argument – it is easier to catch downloaders than home tapers – this does not mean that one behavior should be considered acceptable and the other should not. This kind of argument is a rationalization, used to make unacceptable actions more acceptable.

Indeed, this point is made by Cuttle (2007), a legal expert who stated that piracy of software, video games and music is stealing’ and makes it clear that all such copying is illegal. Given that there is a legal argument against both home taping and internet downloading, it appears reasonable to assume that both should be considered wrong. However, it is important to explore the moral arguments in order to evaluate whether such behaviours should also be considered ‘wrong’ from an ethical perspective.

Reseach by Mixim, Moss and Plummer (1934), as well as later studies inspired by Mixim et al., suggest that most people do maintain an ethical sense of right and wrong even in areas where stealing appears to be more socially acceptable. Their findings suggest that people’s ethical sense wanes when payment methods are difficult but they do not forget what is ethically right. Ebo, Markham and Malik (2004) examined the effect on internet downloading of easier payment schemes. During the study there was a dramatic decrease in illegal downloads with the majority of users choosing to make use of the easy pay scheme. This indicates that the majority of people in the study acknowledge that to download music for free, in effect stealing it, is wrong.

A different ethical approach is suggested by those authors who support unpaid downloading, especially those who use ethical and artistic arguments to counter economic arguments. A number of authors such as ‘Carla’ (2006), an internet downloader, assert that the main argument against downloading comes from record companies who are primarily concerned with their profits. Economic arguments are treated by such writers as if they are intrinsically weaker than artistic ones. ‘Carla’ develops this argument to suggest that true artists are driven by a desire to have their music head by others and welcome the ‘service’ provided by file sharers. Hibbs (2006), a member of the public, also argues that file sharing is a kindness between friends. These kinds of arguments can sound convincing as they make downloading appear to be altruistic, and altruism appears to have the ethical advantage over the rush for profits On the other hand, it could be argued that this altruism is at someone’s expense. The economics of free downloading do not help less well known artists, so not paying for downloads of their work is unethical.

Furthermore, those who defend downloading often act as if they know best the ‘real’ wishes and interests of artists. Carla, for example, refers to ‘true artists’, without defining what a ‘true artist’ is or providing evidence to show what such ‘true’ artists would want. Authors such as ’Carla’ and Hibbs do not provide evidence to show that artists regard free downloading as being more in their interests than the actions taken by businesses. As music sales are usually of direct financial benefit to artists, many artists may also disagree with free downloading.

Moreover, Cuttle (2007) asserts that arguments such as Carla’s and Hibbs’s are invalid in free market terms. Publishers have a right to charge the highest price that they are able to obtain, and consumers can choose whether or not to purchase. In that case, business is not in the wrong to charge whatever price the market will sustain. However, there are other economic, and indeed artistic arguments against Carla’s and Hibbs’s positions. Such authors assume that objections to downloadings come mainly from large companies who can be dismissed as ‘greedy’. Kahliney (2006) argues that small, independent companies and recording artists are most likely to suffer the effects of downloading as their overall reliance on sales is greater. Given that sales for independent artists tend to be low anyway, falling sales could mean the collapse of small labels. Whilst artists could still have their music heard via free downloads, their position is unlikely to remain financially viable for long. Ironically, this increases the likelihood of a music industry populated by the type of ‘bland’ or ‘middle of the road’ acts that Carla complains would exist without internet downloading: they would be the only artists that can guarantee reasonable sales.

In conclusion, there are arguments to support the view that all stealing can be regarded as ‘wrong’. This holds true even in relation to complex areas such as internet downloading, where social behaviors may appear to support the view that downloading without paying is acceptable. Indeed, in the case of unpaid downloading, there are legal and ethical, economic and artistic arguments to support the view that stealing from the industry is wrong. There are counter arguments such as that downloading offers a service to music and small artists, but there is little evidence to support such views or to suggest that they represent the view of the majority. On the contrary, when given accessible, affordable payment options, most people chose not to steal, thereby acknowledging that free downloading is wrong. Although moral positions can easily be influenced by practical circumstances such as how easy it is to pay, research suggests people maintain an ethical sense that stealing is always wrong.

References:

Carla (2006) internet chat room, Cla@mu.room.host, 7 September 2006.

Cuttle, P.D. (2007) ‘Steal it Away’, in National CRI Law Journal, vol. 7, 4.

Ebo, T., Markham, T.H., and Malik, Y. (2004) ‘The effects of ease of payment on willingness to pay. Ethics or ease?’ Proceedings of the Academy for Ethical Dilemmas, vol. 3 (4).

Hibbs, A. ‘Letter to the editor’, in National Press Daily, 3 November 2006.

Kahliney, C. (2006) ‘Is this the end of the road?’ In Small Music Distributor, 12 August 2006.

Lee, A. (2006) ‘Why buy?’ In R. Coe and B. Stepson, Examining Media, pp.36-57 (London:MUP).

Mixim, A., Moss, B. and Plummer, C. (1934) ‘Hidden consensus’. In New Ethical Problems, 17,2.

Piaskin, F. (1986) ‘Moral Dilemmas in Action’, in Joint Universities Journal of Advanced Ethics, vol. 8, 2.

Spratt, A. (2004) ‘The Editorial’, in The Middletown Argus, 17 June 2004.

Explanation / Answer

The text talks about the issue of stealing, the various forms of stealing and the complexities involved in the moral and social sanctions in the context of stealing. The ethical dilemmas related to stealing are explored in the text.

The text is based on the case of unpaid downloading of music from the Internet. Now, unpaid downloading of music from the Internet is similar to home taping. But no one was punished in case of home taping because the perpetrators were evasive. This is not so the case with downloading music on the net. It is possible to catch people who share file on the internet and hence they are being punished. Now, sharing files on the internet is somewhat socially acceptable, but people should still maintain and upheld their ethical principles. By downloading the music for free, we are denying the companies their right to earn profit. This is leading to denial of royalty to artists, or to lowering of royalty payments to the artists. I believe this to be unfair. Many purists argue that artists and musicians derive satisfaction from the fact that their music is being heard. I tend to disagree. It is true that musicians and artists indeed get satisfaction when their music is being heard and appreciated, but at the end of the day, they need to generate income for all their hard work and creativity.

It is completely wrong to call the musicians and the companies greedy. They are just demanding their right. Not only free downloads deny the artists and companies their rights, but it also, in a way spell doom for independent artists. This is because; sales are low for independent artists. Even if a small fraction of their music is downloaded for free, they will be hit hard. This is unjust and unfair.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.