Is it immoral to download music illegally?

Question

I should first point out that the title is more to capture a common occurrence of the broader idea I want to address in this question. It is also somewhat incorrect in that—at least in the US—I'm not sure it's actually illegal to download music without paying (per se), but rather to share it. But the law here is irrelevant; this question is about the moral status of illegal downloading, whether or not it is or should be illegal.

My question, stated in a relatively broad, almost all-encompassing manner:

Is it immoral to acquire goods or services which are generally intangible¹ for free when the original owners of such goods or services would have otherwise profited with such an exchange?

• On one hand you are depriving the original owner of money they could have potentially made
• On the other hand you are not actually taking anything physical from their possession.

_{¹By intangible here I mean simply something that is incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things. A digital version of a song, for example, is tangible in the sense that it is a real, existing product that has value, but intangible in that it occupies essentially no physical space (other than a handful of electrons in the capacitors of a memory module in a computer, etc.).}

I think it's easiest to demonstrate my reasoning so far through thought experiments:

Example 1:

If I walk into a movie theater (having paid), and it just so turns out that I have extremely good photographic memory such that I can rewatch the movie I saw in my head with perfect precision, does that means I am immoral for rewatching it over and over in my head without paying the owner each time? I don't think anyone would seriously say that I am acting immorally in this case. But I don't see this as qualitatively different than having taken a video camera into the theater and then rewatching the movie at home as many times as I please without re-paying the owner. Are people with perfect memory not allowed to go to the movies? You may laugh, but this is becoming a reality sooner than you think with technologies like Google Glass recording every moment of our lives.

Further, the same logic that applies to the above example also applies to many other cases; for example, if I hear a song on the radio and I just happen to be an acoustic genius who—after hearing a song once—possesses the ability to replay a song in my head with extraordinary precision after I've heard it once (or I was simply able to play it whenever I please using my own musical instruments / music mixing software at home). Normally, the cost of a song on the radio is 1) you have to listen to advertisements and 2) you have to wait to hear it again. But in my special case I could eliminate all those costs after hearing the song once. Am I immoral for not subjecting myself to the advertising of the radio station (and therefore reducing the money the radio station makes)?

These examples becomes even more interesting when we consider the inevitable eventuality that humans will integrate technology like cameras and hard drives into our bodies and actually possess perfect memory and recording capabilities as part of our being.

Example 2:

I am a master tailor with near God-like knitting skills. I see a person walking down the street with a beautiful purple scarf. I whip out my knitting tools and fashion myself the exact same scarf in 30 seconds, directly copying every aspect of its style and design. Am I acting immorally by not paying the original owner of the scarf for using his or her exact ideas in creating my own scarf?

I don't see this example as far off from the idea of copying music. With tools which are readily available to us, we are all "Gods" when it comes to copying files. Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V; it's that easy — just as easy as it was for the master tailor. Should I pay the owner of a song each time I copy the song on my computer, say if I want it in my iTunes folder but also in my music folder? That doesn't seem very reasonable. So it seems that the action of copying something itself does not seem to be the problem. It seems to be a problem when the action of copying could result in a loss for someone else. However, if we were required to pay a fee for each copy of a song on our computer, each illicit copy action would result in a loss for someone. However, it's not quite a "loss", is it? The owner is not losing anything. They are simply not gaining some money they could have earned. In the case of the scarf, if I was not a master tailor, I might've otherwise bought the scarf, but you can't honestly say it's immoral for me to be a good knitter, can you? Stated another way:

Is aiding in the loss of a potential sale a moral wrong?

Clearly, what someone does not earn (a "non-gain") is not the same as losing money, because your current wealth is not affected. Non-gain's affect only potential wealth. Is it immoral to negatively affect someone's potential wealth? I negatively affected the potential wealth of cigarette companies by convincing my friend to quit smoking. Was that immoral? It seems ridiculous to think so. But are there cases where it is immoral to negatively affect someone's potential wealth? You tell me.

---

Note:

I want to try to avoid people's subjective opinions on whether stealing non-tangible goods is immoral or not (i.e. in one persons particular opinion rather), and focus on whether it would be considered immoral in the moral community of today (globally, or "developed nations" if that suits you better). Also, note that this question is specifically designed to avoid references to statute; it is not asking whether downloading music is stealing but rather it is morally justifiable. Lastly, I've actually not read any philosophers who have written on this subject at any length, so links to articles would be useful.

Answer 1

I do not think that there is a single answer to the question of "is it immoral to negatively affect someone's potential wealth" in the context of the moral community of today. For example, if I have a great and inexpensive widget for sale, and you have a lousy expensive widget for sale, my advertising of my widget is going to negatively affect your potential wealth. This seems to be viewed as not only perfectly okay but even desirable in market economies (which have particularly nice properties when one can assume consumers have near-perfect knowledge). Or if, for example, I am particularly annoyed with the customer service on United and encourage a friend to fly on Delta instead, I would not expect that friend to criticize me for negatively impacting United. Likewise, if I discouraged someone from taking a bus tour of Washington D.C., and encouraged them to walk instead because it would be a better experience, they'd probably appreciate it (if it was good advice). So it seems that in the context of market-based competition and engaging in exchange of goods and services it is absolutely okay to aid in the loss of a potential sale.

(As an aside, companies and individuals do often try to use copyright to head off these sorts of losses; if an embarrassing document comes to light, for example, it's common that the entity will at least try to assert its copyright to avoid having the negative information disseminated.)

If we instead restrict ourselves to the main question--is it immoral to acquire intangible goods for free--then I think there is no single answer because there is not a single community. I've heard the following argument in various guises, mostly from thoughtful but non-affluent people, specifically with regard to music:

1. I love such-and-so music.
2. I cannot afford to buy more than this much of it, and I do buy this much.*
3. Downloading the rest for free benefits me.
4. Downloading the rest for free only formally, not actually, reduces the artists' income, as I cannot afford more. There was no more potential for sales, so there is no actual harm.
5. Therefore, this activity is morally permissible.

*^{The "the artists who created this get almost none of the money" argument often modulates this claim--that is, they're happy to buy things that support the artists, but not necessarily to download music from iTunes where an overwhelming majority of the money goes to people other than the artists.}

I've also heard the following argument in various guises, mostly from affluent people who rely on the current system for their affluence:

1. Music is the work of artists (and producers and so on); that is the output of their labor.
2. Music has a tangible value (i.e. people are willing to exchange money in order to be able to listen to it).
3. Taking items of tangible value without the consent of its creators robs the creators of their livelihood.
4. Therefore, this activity is both immoral and counterproductive.

From what I have seen, there is disagreement because the premises differ (both based on self-interest): the latter group takes the value for granted and reasons from there; the former takes the creation of the work for granted and reasons from there.

Of course, neither is true in some deep sense. If we could monetize and restrict the supply of oxygen, it would become extremely valuable, but that does not mean it would be beneficial; one should not simply take for granted the value of a song under the current scheme where distribution is restricted. Likewise, even for music, but especially for expensive propositions like software creation and movies laden with special effects and stars, it is clear that models that cannot fund the creators will be destructive, and therefore that being a freeloader is aiding oneself at the expense of others (which is pretty widely considered immoral).

I have not seen any philosophically sophisticated treatment of the various considerations. Lawrence Lessig has written some of the more carefully-reasoned material taking the side that copyright as used now is having a sizable negative impact, but he is a professor of law, not a philosopher. I am unaware of an equally eloquent proponent of an opposing stance.

Answer 2

Over several decades, I've paid the music industry many times more than the average consumer, but in recent years I've almost exclusively obtained my recordings from "illegal" use of P2P and torrents on the internet.

I don't see my current behaviour as immoral, nor do I think the fact that I paid a lot in the past, or that I've had no income (and dwindling savings) recently, have any real bearing on the moral question.

Most professional musicians don't earn huge sums, but what they do earn comes mainly from live performances. When I go to a gig, I'm grateful if I know one of the band and can blag a free ticket - but I don't expect this; I respect a person's right to be paid if they're working, while I'm just there to enjoy myself.

For a top-notch album, there are always enough people in the world willing to pay, which will cover the (relatively) low costs of recording and mastering. Distribution over the net is bordering on free anyway, and if people still want the physical medium they're obviously going to have to pay for that.

The people who lose out from music piracy are primarily those in the music distribution business, not the musicians themselves. I'd be happy to see their entire business disappear, since I think they're at best dinosaurs, and at worst leeches.

Returning to the moral issue, just because a relatively small number of top entertainers (including some musicians) do in fact become staggeringly wealthy, doesn't mean an aspiring musician should feel he's being "robbed" if he doesn't receive maximum income all the way through his journey to the top (which in most cases he'll never reach). Specifically, I see no moral justification for musicians being paid again and again for repeat sales of a recording which - once completed - requires no further effort on their part.

Answer 3

Is it immoral to negatively affect someone's potential wealth?

This is actually a very good question if we replace "wealth" with "income".

The the answer goes like this:

1. In a free market economy, high profits (and, hence, income) can be made only by saitisfying urgent demand for things that are very scarce. For example, while water is essential to sustain life, its price is usually quite low (at least outside deserts). In certain regions water is actually a free good. OTOH, diamonds and gold, while per se useless or at least not necessary to sustain life, command high prices and those who dig and sell them make high profits.
2. Therefore, one way to possibly "negatively affect" high profits in a free market economy would be to persuade people not to demand that what is scarce. As long as this is done without force or threadening of force, there is nothing to object to that.
3. Another way would be to actually reduce the scarcity of the item in question. For example, in a town where hunger reigns, one that sells grain will make high profits. These profits will decline drastically as soon as fresh grain supplies are brought in from outside and sold.

But (3) is actually the definition of increasing wealth! By producing something people need and want, you create wealth and, inevitably, reduce future profits of all producers of comparable items.

Hence, the answer to your question is a resounding "No, it is not immoral."

If this were so, then the following activities would be immoral: quit smoking (reduce income of tobacco industry); build a house next to another (as far as free standing houses with better scenic view command higher prices); bake your own bread (think of the poor baker, dude!); inventing, building, selling and using automobiles/computers/washing machines; not using automobiles/computers/washing machines; ... you get the picture.

It is a certain caste of rent seekers that want to make us believe that "their" future profits actually are already their property right now, so that taking them away is "stealing". They have a natural alley, that helps them to pursue their special interests using force - the state.

Answer 4

You've made a LOT of assumptions in your post, and have a pretty big set of seemingly unexamined presuppositions behind your statements that seem to me to need exposition.

1. By saying that the legality of an action is irrelevant to its morality, you claim, unsupported, that morality is entirely detached from legality. This is quite a sweeping assertion!

2. You seem to accept an innate human right to property, and furthermore that depriving a person of property is morally wrong. However, you have adopted a definition of property that is not necessarily justified, something along the lines of, only tangible, macro-size physical objects can be considered property. You insinuate that the small size or general imperceptibility of the foundational existence of a thing renders that thing as not property, or even not real. You offer no support for this definition of property and these additional insinuations. The picture you paint is that if music can be represented by "a handful of electrons"–something clearly of no value to anyone–then the music itself cannot also be valuable.

3. You conflate the state of the world as it is now, with the state of the world if it were populated with only certain kinds of highly remarkable people. This overlooks the fact that value in most cases is determined in context of the whole world. To propose a different world than the real one as the basis for valuation of a thing is at best a simple mistake and at worst dishonest. Think about it! If everyone in the world were an acoustic genius who could instantly copy and masterfully play anything they heard, then music would in fact not be very valuable–correct! But that's not the world we live in, and people far and away cannot do that, so it's not a useful means for determining the value of property. Here is an argument that is equivalent to yours, and perhaps more accessible being so patently incorrect: "If everyone in the world had ten thousand kilograms of gold, then it wouldn't be valuable any more, so it's not wrong to take gold from people, as it's hardly worth anything."

4. Since value is determined in context and not in isolation, your examples of amazing memory and talent proving the lack of an audio recording's value don't work. You are treating actions that can externally and artificially change the landscape of the world en masse (such as video cameras, which are accessible to anyone) with intrinsic internal abilities that are exceptionally rare and not shareable or duplicatable. Yes, there might be someone in the world who possesses the magic ability to exactly copy a Rembrandt painting down to the molecule and do it from the opposite side of the world, yet the morality of him using magic thus just once for his own private viewing cannot at all inform us about the morality of using a machine to make 10 million copies of that same Rembrandt and distributing them, rendering the original almost worthless (and the value of the painting, not just appreciation for art, is a huge part of the owner's pleasure in its possession, especially when he may plan to sell it in the future for consideration close to what it took to acquire in the first place).

5. You're making the unsupported claim that placing technology within one's body turns whatever that technology does into one's private possession and right. That's a real whopper! Your being does not consist of the outlines of your physical body, such that the insertion into your physical body of something makes it an inseparable aspect of your intrinsic, unassailable self!

6. You conflate the ease of copying something with the inverse of its value. At the core of it, you're suggesting that anything which can be represented as information, by virtue of the ability to copy information, cannot be property. In some ways, though, you're really talking about the state of technology, not the true nature of things. Consider: if technology progressed to the point that someone could exactly duplicate your spouse or mother or sister, totally non-invasively, would it then be acceptable for him to viciously torture the duplicate? If you had 3 copies of your spouse around the house and could Ctrl+C Ctrl+V another one any time you liked, would this mean it is not murder for someone to kill one of them? The ability of technology to represent a thing such as music as information has no bearing on the value of a thing or right to possess it, any more than the ability of technology to represent a thing such as a human as information would have any bearing on the right to do anything at all with that information (such as put a copy of your spouse's information online, there to be freely downloaded all over the world, turned back into a human, and mistreated in horrible ways again and again).

7. Framing the issue as "potentially affecting another person's wealth" is the straw man argument. It's just a simple fact that some ways of affecting another person's wealth are clearly immoral, and other ways of affecting another person's wealth are not. Pretending that since the latter is true, the former is not immoral is just an unconvincing lie.

The fact is, you can't enjoy music in your mind without having the digital information required to reproduce it on demand, so all your different ways of saying the same thing about this action being tantamount to the same thing fall flat on their faces as mere wishful thinking.

Please note that I have avoided, as far as I can tell, subjective personal opinions on whether stealing information is immoral or not. However, I have used logic to attempt to show you where your reasoning is incorrect or lacks a proper foundation, and globally, or in "developed nations", logic is something of high value. You've come to a philosophy site, and thus ostensibly are looking for reasoned, rational discussion. If you were looking for the irrational, you wouldn't have come here (right?).

Now, I've saved what may be the most important thing for last. You speak of morality and immorality, and suggest that the only anchor for these concepts should be the "moral community of today/the world/developed nations". But how can that be of any value to you here? If you personally define morality as that which most people agree with or most people in developed nations agree with, then a philosophy web site dedicated to pursuit of truth is a horrible place to come. Instead, you should visit a site dedicated to polling the greater public. Run a poll on Facebook, "Do you think illegal downloading of music is wrong", and then abide by whichever answer is given by 51% or more of the respondents.

My computer is about to run out of battery power, but I will try to return later to provide you with some links that go deeper into the various points I've made.

Answer 5

One concept that I thought is worth mentioning is from Judaism. The idea is that there's a division between cases where "One enjoys and one has not lost"(זה נהנה וזה לא ��סר), and cases where "One enjoys and one has lost"(זה נהנה וזה חסר). In cases of downloading copyrighted material, you could argue that it comes under the first category, since you're not causing them to actually lose anything they already have, rather you are simply preventing them from receiving additional payment to which they might be entitled. In that case, often it is seen as not immoral to do (or take) the thing, since we like it when people enjoy things. The original example given is in tractate "Baba Kama" of the Babylonian Talmud, Pages 20-21, where they discuss whether a man who slept on another man's property without the owner knowing (or actually losing anything) is obligated to pay after the fact, and they come to the conclusion that he's generally not (I'm oversimplifying, it depends on the circumstances). Based on that, the Rabbis would also sometimes say that the owner might have an obligation to allow the action in cases where he doesn't lose anything, since they don't like people enforcing their rights in a fashion that hurts somebody (so if you weren't going to rent out that property anyway, it seems unfair to prevent me from living there).

Answer 6

It is not clear to me that the notion of a "lost sale" is coherent. How are you supposed to quantify it? Even if we were forced to assign some percentage of downloads which would have been almost-certainly-purchased, it would have to be tiny -- dwarfed by the amount of content shared in violation of copyright-holder's wishes on the matter.

In passing, as I alluded in my comments above, there is at least some contention over the idea that an illegal download is morally significant (at least when compared to implicitly supporting the arguably immoral behavior of profit-obsessed music industry executives, the underlying capitalist framework with its tendency to relentlessly exploit artists, and so forth.)

From a wider perspective, perhaps, illegal downloads might seem to be a relatively minor "concern" compared with the revolutionary transformations we are witnessing in the social and economic order today, in part due to the increased interconnectivity of people on the internet and the growing impact of globalization on everyday life. I am suggesting that artists need to focus on making products with inherent or intrinsic value, and giving people a reason to purchase; fighting piracy is ultimately an enormous waste of time.

You can read about a recent presentation by the creator of Minecraft where he makes more or less this case; he emphasizes the difference between pirating and theft and the incoherence of the "lost sale" concept, as well as the importance of giving people a reason to buy. From there:

Piracy is not theft. If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world... There is no such thing as a 'lost sale'... Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed ship date?

Answer 7

This question is rather difficult, as the world economy today is, in industrial economies, becoming more and more post-industrial--so much so that intellectual property rights are becoming less and less clear. "Mine" no longer means this thing that's in my hand, etc. etc.. Of course, the moral issue will be determined by the economic solution to the problem. Value, it seems, is becoming less dependent on supply and demand and more dependent on the popularity and utility of an item (be it tangible or intangible). Of course, the item must be accessible (to be popular).

Answer 8

You are violating the principle of ownership

Sharing and using intangible goods is not about how you acquire it, or whether the goods can be duplicated for no cost, or whether the original owner still has a copy of the goods. It is entirely not about that. All of those things are issues that have no relevance to the morality of the act.

In the end, sharing intangible goods without permission comes down to this:

You are violating the rights of the owner to control their property

Ownership — in short — means: the exclusive right to control what happens with property.

It does not matter if this property is material or immaterial. Whoever has the rights as the owner, is the one that has final say-so of what happens to the property. And usually — unless explicitly stated otherwise — owners of immaterial property do not want you to share it without due compensation given to the owner.

Let us start from first principles:

1. Ownership is the exclusive right to control property
2. Any property that you create, you automatically become the owner of
3. Ownership can be transferred to someone else, but as per point 1, it is up to the owner to agree on this.

The exclusivity in point 1 is important because otherwise someone else can come in and say "I too control this property". Ownership means that the owner can say "No, you may not do that, I have the exclusive right to control the property".

If you want to exert any kind of control over someone else's property, you have you have their permission to do that. In the case of immaterial property this is said to mean you need to have a license to use the property. License is granted by the owner, either explicitly or implicitly. This licence may come with conditions and limitations that must be fulfilled.

An example of explicitly giving permission, with conditions:

— Yes, you can borrow my car. You may use it today and tomorrow, I want it back in by tomorrow evening. And replace the fuel you used, all right?

— Agreed.

If you had not gotten this permission, you would have violated the principle of ownership, even if you did return the car in the same or better condition.

In the case of immaterial property, you are never actually buying the property. You are buying the license to use it. Only in the very rare cases where there is an agreement to transfer all rights to the prospective buyer are they obtaining the intellectual property in its entirety.

In the case of immaterial property you usually have implicit licenses, or rather these licenses are defined by law.

For example: you buy an audio record. You then have then (usually) been given the license to...

• Listen to the audio as much as you like
• Listen to the audio on a device of your choice
• Let others listen to the audio, if this happens in private
• Make backup copies to ensure you can can still enjoy the audio if the medium the audio came on is damaged

In the case of things such as records, books, USB sticks and other mediums that carry the immaterial property, yes, then you have a right to use the material property that is the the paper/vinyl/silicon however you want. But you have not bought the immaterial property that is carried on the medium, that is still owned by someone else, and you have only bought the license to use that immaterial property.

That license however, may be sold in turn in most jurisdictions, but now we are getting into fine details.

Other details about the whole concept of buying licenses is that the owner may not sell licenses that are unreasonable to the buyer. There is a plethora of limitations as to what you may do as the owner that are designed to protect the buyer so that the latter may enjoy the immaterial product without undue hindrance or grievance.

Answer 9

Morality is one of those lovely minefields of thought where cultural upbringing and history are perhaps the more relevant factors to consider.

Case in point is that in certain cultures in times past (Mongolian comes to mind), if you could get away with stealing from your enemies (or even your friends). It did not matter the harm you might have done by depriving a village of its food, or a child its mother. So long as your own and your villages needs were met, you were considered brave, strong, and with qualities to aspire to. If on the other hand you tried to get away with that kind of behavior in Western culture today, you'd be granted 2 to 15 in a less than hospitable lock-up.

Cultures change over time. The fiercely defended ideals that we cling to today might be considered quaint and rustic tomorrow, or may become even more fiercely defended and held up as moral example by some depending on how successfully defended they might be. Intellectual property issues in particular are at a very interesting point. On the one hand there are those who would claim that something like an idea, or a sound, or a style is something of value and should be guarded jealously and paid for dearly, while others argue that such ephemeral things such as ideas and thoughts, art, and suchlike should be shared freely as something that should benefit all equally. To muddy the waters, we have others still who wish to own everything and share nothing unless it benefits themselves personally, and yet another corner where there are those who wish to take what they will and see it as a form of personal entitlement regardless of whether they should or not be allowed to do so. Each has a case or a point they might make, and which they feel comfortable with from their own moral point of view. Each sees the other's view as wrong, and their own as justifiable. But immoral?

Perhaps it comes down to a question of intent. If by taking an action to obtain something illegally the intent was to profit personally, or to harm the property owner in some way, then that could be considered a theft which would be considered wrong, but not necessarily immoral. If the intention was otherwise innocent of intent to cause harm or to profit from the action, then it would not necessarily be right, and certainly not immoral. But that's almost entirely my own view, and certainly not an absolute. As to whether the item in question is tangible in any physical sense, it shouldn't really make a difference if the theft in question causes harm to someone else.

If it comes down purely to a question of morality, then intention to harm others in some manner could be considered immoral, while a lack of intent could not. A younger child stealing money from your wallet to buy sweets might not be considered to have behaved immorally, yet that same child as an older teenager stealing money to purchase drugs or sex might be seen in a entirely different way - except perhaps to our earlier ancient Mongolian who'd probably laugh it off and ask what all of the fuss is about.

Perhaps we shouldn't be asking if it is immoral to behave in the manner stated in the OP's question, but instead whether it is unethical?

Answer 10

This does not seem to be a question so particular to the music industry. And it is not a question of coming into possession of something. What is purchased in a download of a music file, for instance, but also with the purchase of a DVD, a recording of an NFL game, or a newspaper clipping, is a license to use, with terms limiting the use. We have agreed to terms with the owner of the rights of use. We have made a promise. The moral question boils down to: is there a moral obligation built into every promise? I take Searle's argument for the built in obligation of a promise, in Fact and value, "is" and "ought", and reasons for action, Searle, 2008, to be successful. The specific question is, do we make a promise when we download music? I think it is obvious we do. Musicians who feel these terms are trivial self publish and make their music freely available.

The price of admission to a film includes the right to remember the experience and even to tell others about it. If the purple scarf is an original design, then copying it with an intention to sell it is wrong. Society agrees on a time period restricting selling copies of original designs, after which considering the designs to pass into public domain. Copying the scarf for your own use may or may not aggravate the designer. It would be a subjective call, and the designer should be given the opportunity to make the call.

Answer 11

Maybe this is buried in the other answers but .... what is special about music in this case?

If I promise to pay you $10 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. Then I refuse to pay you. Is that immoral? You've given me no physical product. All you've done is provide some labor. Why should I have to compensate you for that labor? Making music also requires labor. Those two situations seem related.

You might say you never made a promise to pay for the music. The musician made it on his own. That is certainly one distinction.

Okay so let's examine a physical object. There's a pie at a pie store. You could pay $10 for it or you could take it. Now you'd probably believe that taking the pie is taking something physical therefore it's stealing where as music is just a copy. But let's examine what you're really paying for with the pie.

Let's say it's an apple pie. Let's say the ingredients are flour (wheat), sugar, and apples. wheat, sugar, and apples are all things that come from nature. In other words they are free so why are we paying for them? We're paying for them because of the labor it took to make them. Labor to plant apple trees, sugarcane, and wheat plants. Labor to pick apples, cut sugarcane, and harvest wheat. Labor to process sugarcane into sugar and wheat into flour. Labor to ship apples, sugar, and flour to the pie store. And labor to assemble them into a pie. The same is true for the oven to bake the pie. The metals came out of the ground for free. The fuel to run the oven also came out of ground for free. All the costs are in the labor to turn raw materials into metals and metals into an oven, to refine natural gas and deliver it to the oven, etc...

What we've just shown is that you never pay for physical things themselves, you always pay for the labor.

So back to music. Music is a product of labor. Labor should arguably be paid for just like all other labor. Or rather it should be paid for the agreed price. If there is no agreement than you shouldn't get the result of the labor. If you're not willing to pay $10 for the combine labor to make the pie then you don't get the pie. It doesn't matter that it was actually made from free materials and therefore has no real value. The value is the labor and the person that did the labor sets their price. Why should music be different?

At least that's one P.O.V.

Another P.O.V. is that the labor for the music is so small relative to other things and unlike the pie can be reproduced infinitely and therefore there is no reasonable value to that labor. Charging $1 per song per person seems ridiculous when 10 million people are paying as most songs likely took only a 10-200 hours to make.

Of course that argument seems to fall flat since we're back to it doesn't matter what it costs to make, it's the seller that chooses their price and the buyer that decide to buy or not to buy the labor.

Anyway, I don't know the answer. I just think it's interesting to point out that physical things don't get their value from being physical since if you follow them back they all start from free raw materials. All value is derived from labor. Music, Stories, Movies, Video Games are all made from labor as well.

On the other hand, IIRC all music is free in China (so they clearly have a different P.O.V)

Answer 12

“Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what is told regardless of what is right.” H.L. Mencken

Morality depends on your social background and personal criteria. If you come from a capitalistic background who supports copyrights patents etc. you may feel compelled to obey the law. If you come from a much socialist background you may think that culture and technology should be made available for as many people as possible. Sometimes law and justice don't go hand in hand.

Answer 13

First there was chants and song: then written music: then the phonograph: then 33 & 45 records: then tape recorders: then i pods: through all the years music has been shared socially.I would presume that music became a sale item when men became free to sell songs and lyrics openly, as a trade agreement. "Is it immoral to down load music illegally?" Is it illegal just to listen? Illegal depends who proclaimd downloading as illegal?

Shared music could be called advertizing, and social medea is used as such. If I was the person that created the music I would hope my music would be downloaded. Understanding that downloading caused and created outside vender sales to increace.

Immoral downloading is only immoral, when immoral is used as a agent of force against a free persons quest for notoriety. The greater the notoriety the more downloads. This produces more public need for inventory and more concerts sold.This would then increase the income that the artist can acquire.

Illegal in this case is the government group that believes its there right to usurp income using illegal for their parasitical use. Thats the immoral issue involved.

Answer 14

You are assuming that "downloading music illegally" implies "negatively affecting someone's potential wealth". You did not prove it, and did not even feel the need to question it. Any reasoning you will try to build on top of that assumption is bound to crumble if it turns out to be wrong.

While I do not know for sure, I think it is. I believe a fairly high percentage of sales involve music connoisseurs, who will keep buying their music, because CDs and vinyl records are more than mere media to them. Piracy has become an alternative distribution network, allowing them to listen to music they would never have bought blindly, and then reward good music by buying it. This is actually a healthy, capitalist process; those who strive for quality instead of simply relying on mass media and distribution are rewarded.

I am short on english-speaking references to support my claim, but this specific question has been discussed on Skeptics.SE (Skeptics rocks): https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2854/is-the-music-industry-losing-significant-money-because-of-piracy

Additionally, I am not sure if this is really fit for Philosophy.SE.

Answer 15

Usually this type of question limits choices to only two, while there's three choices:

• Buy product
• Download product
• Not use product at all

Choice between 'Buy' and 'Download' is covered by other answers.

Choice between 'Buy' and 'Not buy' is usually not considered a choice that can be 'moral' or 'immoral'. Also, it was covered in more general terms of affecting other's wealth in other questions.

So, if you're somewhat interested in product, but decided not buy it because it's not affordable or it have bad price/quality ratio, and will never have, you still have two choices: 'Download' and 'Not use at all'.

Many people think that it is more moral to not use product at all than to download pirated version. Yet from publisher's perspective, it will not get money from you in either case. But we are social creatures. By using product and telling your impressions to others, no matter if positive or negative, will raise general awareness of the product. It will cause more people to be aware of the product, which will cause more people to buy it. So, publisher will benefit more if you're using product, even if you downloaded it.

Article with Microsoft's perspective about it: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/13/ms_piracy_benefits/

P.S. I'm sure there's "unproven assumptions", but I just wanted to add my informal perspective on the topic.

Answer 16

Morality is the distinction of good from evil. It is evil to do anything against your own self-interest, because it defeats your role in evolution and thus against the resiliency (anti-fragility) of the species.

If I were to qualify that with the stipulation to not do anything against others' interests, then you could never do anything in your own self-interest because there is always someone who is negatively impacted by any action (even if it must be argued via the Butterfly Effect). Thus the the only possible operative definition of morality is self-interest.

(Edit: you might choose it is in your self-interest to consider the interests of others. That is still self-interest, even if you characterize it as sacrifice obviously you didn't do if it wasn't to your benefit overall.)

We enact laws to codify consensual agreement of that which is evil against the group, and thus we can't legally do the illegal activities without leaving the legal jurisdiction (and this is why society only exists by consent with free will and not coercion a.k.a. totalitarianism in its many flavors). Yet legality is orthogonal to morality.

Morality was the fundamental philosophical issue that I resolved before I became a teenager. I am 50 now and my logic hasn't changed.

---

You asked whether it is moral to violate laws. Usually it would only be in one's self-interest to consider doing so when society has become unreasonably coercive and not consent with free will, i.e. when choice of jurisdiction is effectively nullified. I would again argue the self-interest of that tradeoff has to be weighed by each individual. Smaller communities impinge less on the degrees-of-freedom of jurisdiction.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants— Thomas Jefferson

.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety— Ben Franklin