Click Vs Brick
An exploration of mp3 file sharing and online music piracy, and its ethical implications regarding consumers, musicians, and record companies
Background
"In traditional ethical studies, the classic problem is the starving man - can a starving man ethically steal a loaf of bread if he has no money. The modern version is evidently, can the person who wants to listen to music steal it if he thinks the price is too high?"
The topical escalation of media coverage besieging the demise of Napster has instigated widespread debate over the implications file sharing and the Internet will have for the record industry. The Napster software allowed its millions of users to share and download music mp3 files, which are of near CD quality, from each other's hard drives. This infringed copyright laws and provided a very real threat to both musicians and record companies alike. In response Napster was sued by the American heavy metal band Metallica, and then taken to court by The Recording Industry Association of America; where they were subsequently ordered to cease operating. Despite this verdict, many similar companies such as Grokster and Kazaa continue to offer file-sharing facilities and provide free access to copyrighted music.
There are numerous arguments originating from all sides of the debate. Many of these are mutually exclusive and, therefore, cannot all be substantiated. McDougall (2000) published an article online, in which he summates the main arguments listed below:
- Copying is fair use
- Copying is theft
- Music wants to be free
- Napster users buy more CDs
- Music companies make too much money
- Music companies will make more money with Internet distribution
- Musicians can't make money with Internet distribution
Musicians will make more money with Internet distribution
Within the context of...
View Full Essay