The Gray Area of File Sharing

Downloading and sharing files has become so wide spread and commonplace, that the ethics behind it are no longer black and white, but gray. When it comes to downloading a song from a major label artist, I feel that it is okay to download these songs because artists on major labels no longer make a lot of money through record sales. Instead it is through touring, which the record companies do an excellent job publicizing and charge a ridiculous amount for tickets (I recently paid $118 dollars for a Spice Girls ticket. For what? Five females in flashy costumes lip syncing. But I enjoyed every second). I also feel like it is okay to download independent artists. Often times I have a hard time finding the work of small artists in stores, and often times the websites their CD’s are sold through are not reliable, so I find it simpler just to download their work. But in me listening to their work, I am also sharing their music with my friends, which hopefully helps their ticket sales and notoriety. I have never had to download a second copy of a song I already own, but I would hate to repurchase something I already bought, so I guess I would probably download it to avoid paying. However, even though I would do it, I think it probably is more ethical to shell-out the 99 cents on Itunes than to download it because just because you already own something does not mean you own every copy. Like, if I own a sweater, and I want a second one to leave at my boyfriend’s house, I have to buy a second one. Maybe the shame should apply to music.
While I feel like downloading music, in most cases, is okay, many argue that it is identical to shoplifting a CD. However, shoplifting and stealing from a store effects many more people than the practice of downloading music. When you steal a CD, you are effecting the artist, the music label, as well as the music store and its employees, while downloading only effects the artist and music label because there is no middle man. I also do not agree with downloading music just to “sample” before purchasing. Why would someone purchase something they already got for free? I would not.
When it comes to something like copying a CD from a friend, I think this is fine because it is so mainstream and common place that the ethics behind the it have been dismissed. It is the evolution of the mix-tape. It is the sharing of music on a small basis. When it comes to sharing music on a world level, on networks like LimWire. Such a massive level of file sharing does take an impact on the music industry.
When it comes to the ethics of this issue, if we looked at it as a business, all of these scenarios would clearly be wrong. But because music is an art that we so closely identify with ourselves we feel a certain sense of ownership and therefore making the ethics behind file sharing all gray area for personal interpretation of the situation.

Digital Media

Like most people, music has been a main component of my life and my memories. Wanting to play my parents’ Go-Go’s records over and over when I was four, watching my father install our first stereo system with a CD player, getting my first CD (the Backstreet Boys, of course) and listening to it on my boombox in my bedroom. These are just a few memories that I have growing up and the way I listened to music. But with digital music, listening to music has changed from an activity that had little variety (you only have a certain number of CD’s or tapes at your fingertips, and sharing is a pain) and required heavy equipment. Now I have thousands of songs at my fingertips in a small compact device that I take everywhere. And if I hear a song I like, I can easily and instantly purchase it and listen to it. While the digital process may cause music to lose some of its “authentic” sound due to compression like AAC (which my Itunes uses), but I do not have a keen enough ear for such things.
The benefits of the amount of digital material one can store also affects photos. Because of compression I can get photos of my baby cousin via email and I can post photos of my artistic work online for others to enjoy. But I while I can’t tell the difference in compressed digital music and analog music, I can tell the difference between compressed photos and high-quality photos. Photos are too easily distorted in colors and pixilation when compressed, sometimes ruining photos and memories. I might just be a bit bitter, since I ruined quite a few photos of my trip to Italy, simply because I was trying to post them on my Myspace. But I feel the pro’s out weigh the cons, because digital photos allows for easier sharing and transferring of information. Also, Photoshop is quite addicting and makes cool stuff.
While digitizing media does take away from the quality, the ability to share this information easily is far more valuable. It allows for a transfer of knowledge, culture and the human experience (which is best expressed through mediums like music and imagery) and without digitizing or compression it is much more difficult to do this.