When Free is Worth More

Before I broach the subject of the theft of intellectual property by way of file sharing (piracy, for lack of a better term), let me first state that breaking laws is a bad idea regardless of how one might feel about said laws. Deliberately engaging in unlawful behavior comes with certain legal risks and ethical complications that most of us would rather not face. Furthermore, while I’m sure you’ll discover that many artists have a wide variety of opinions about how they wish for their own work to be distributed, all those who expect to make a living off the sale of their own work will agree (to one extent or another) that you should adhere to whichever content distribution method artists feel is appropriate for their own work.

Why, you may ask, am I going so far out of my way to issue warnings and disclaimers? I do so because I feel compelled to touch on a rather touchy subject, namely that of illegal filesharing. Anyone who has ever used a computer has likely faced the temptation to copy and/or distribute copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder. My first violation probably went back to when I owned my 386dx40, and I was a beneficiary of “pirated” software as far back as the family’s Apple //c in the 1980s. It is rare to find anyone who does not “pirate” software, music, or mouvies, de primarily to the nature of computers themselves. Computers are meant to store, create, and copy data ad infinitum, and networked computers are meant to distribute said data to all other computers on the network as desired by users. To computer users, there is no power greater than the ability to share something wonderful with your friends, be it a new game, some new code you wrote, a new app, or anything else you can store on a harddrive. Any software that can not be legally copied instantly loses practical value to computer users, which is why computer users have sought for years to add value to their data by making it distributable, even at the risk of facing fines and imprisonment. This does not even begin to touch on the subject of the sale of bootlegs at discount prices, which is a different ballgame entirely (at least in my opinion).

For whatever reason, computer users, as a whole, seem to have come to the conclusion that the sharing of copyrighted music is a less egregious offense than sharing copyrighted movies or software, not that it stops people from downloading all of the above. With music, the connection fans have to the band is much stronger than any connection downloaders have to programmers, game designers, producers, studio execs, and so forth and so on. Music is a much more intimate matter, and as such, the debate over what effect illegal music downloads have on bands and the music industry as a whole has become rather fierce. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has stridently defended the right of IP holders (typically labels, occasionally artists) to sue downloaders, uploaders, and filesharing services in order to stymie the ever-increasing flow of “pirated” music over the Internet. Realistically, however, most fans and artists know that the core argument against illegal file sharing – that downloading a song effectively removes the downloader as a potential buyer of a CD or single – is flawed or completely bogus, given the fact that the behavior of downloaders is never actually taken into account by the RIAA. Some studies and plenty of anecdotal evidence suggest that people still buy about the same amount of music regardless of how much they download. Furthermore, most bands trying to make a buck off their work usually make their best money off merchandise and ticket sales from concerts. Small-market bands have a hard time getting wide enough distribution on their albums to make considerable (or any) profits selling them, while bands signed with larger labels find their profits eroded by promotion fees and other costs associated with doing business the Big Label way (if you don’t believe me, read Courtney Love’s piece on Salon.com. Long story short: to most artists, downloads do not represent lost revenue. What they do represent is something that may impugn a band’s ability to sign with a label in the future if their work is over-“pirated”. If, by some odd chance, the band should become famous and retain the full rights to most or all their own work (ala Metallica), downloads suddenly represent a huge potential loss in revenue, but only if one believes that downloaders are being converted into non-customers after every illegal download. The issue is far more complicated than the RIAA would like to let on, even if the legal issues involved are not complicated at all.

What I would recommend as a remedy to the download confusion is to investigate Creative Commons, both from the perspective of the artist and the fan. For the artist, it represents the ability to reach out to tech-savvy fans and self-promote in a legally-conscious way; labels may or may not favor the activity, but at least they’ll know what page you’re on (versus big-name artists who routinely leak their own albums before launch as a favor to fans, much to the chagrin of labels). In the event that studies and anecdotes alike prove to be true (in that downloads do not actually harm revenue), Creative Commons will give bands with the guts to distribute some or all of their work under a CC license a major edge over those who (over)protect their work with traditional IP restrictions. For fans, Creative Commons works are almost universally distributable over any filesharing network without legal complication. Any desirable data, such as music, that can be reproduced, stored, and distributed freely has more value than data that can not be copied. Therefore, Creative Commons adds value to music in a legal and consumer-friendly way. Obviously, Creative Commons isn’t going to work for everyone, and many artists will want to stick to traditional IP protections in the event that they simply do not trust filesharing networks to be anything other than hives of scum and villainy. I respect that viewpoint, especially considering the hard work that goes into the production of quality music. However, we would all do well to at least investigate what Creative Commons has to offer, just as it would be wise of us to think twice before we allow groups like the RIAA to completely dominate the filesharing debate and, in so doing, dictate morality to us all.