Seriously, though - how can one think/act ethically about file sharing?
I don't download much these days, mostly because I usually can't find what I'm looking for on Kazaa. Plus, I'm always frustrated with the quality of the .mp3s that I download, especially when I think I've downloaded Woody Guthrie's '1913 Massacre,' and it turns out to be a recording of one of Hitler's speeches. Guh. How I long for those halcyon Napster days when I could find everything by Frank Hutchison or Dock Boggs with the click of a mouse.
Anyways, I always absolved myself of any sort of moral responsibility by saying that I was still supporting the music industry, despite my file sharing. I've bought hundreds of cds over the past few years and I can only think of a few times where I've downloaded an album instead of buying it. Does this grant me carte blanche to download at will? I'm not sure that I can make a logical argument in my favor.
Another argument that I bandy about when I'm feeling particularly guilty about stealing music goes a little sumpin' like this:
1. The music industry as it stands today is deeply corrupt. It's corruption manifests itself in various ways: high paid execs, low paid artists, pandering to a debased morality and cultural stupidity, encouraging American imperialism/hegemony, etc. In short, it embodies every reprehensible quality of our late capitalist economy.
2. File-sharing seems to have a detrimental effect on the music industry's ability to exist.
3. Perhaps file-sharing will ultimately bring the ruin of this industry, which, given point #1, would be a moral good (although only if its replacement is not worse than the original industry).
Then there's the argument that any sort of culture dissemination via capitalist channels is ultimately bad for art/culture because it places profit motive ahead of the integrity and quality of the art/culture. This argument relies on the assertion that culture/art is not a mere commodity, but carries some sort of educational value and is therefore deserving of something better than crass capitalist marketing and selling. Because culture/art has this educational character, we should support it like we support our other educational institutions (libraries, schools, etc), via tax payer funding and democratic decision-making, which do more to ensure its quality. Or so the argument goes.
Of course, the alternative to a capitalist culture industry is a state-run culture industry, which has its obvious problems (imagine a million more NEA-funded hacks like Karen Finley. Shudder.).
Tell me, O moral exemplars, do any of these arguments make sense? Or am I just trying to justify my theft ('cause no matter which way you look at it, that's what file-sharing is)?
Ben, you know the cultural marxist stuff. Throw me a brain-bone, will ya? What would Teddy Adorno say?
I don't download much these days, mostly because I usually can't find what I'm looking for on Kazaa. Plus, I'm always frustrated with the quality of the .mp3s that I download, especially when I think I've downloaded Woody Guthrie's '1913 Massacre,' and it turns out to be a recording of one of Hitler's speeches. Guh. How I long for those halcyon Napster days when I could find everything by Frank Hutchison or Dock Boggs with the click of a mouse.
Anyways, I always absolved myself of any sort of moral responsibility by saying that I was still supporting the music industry, despite my file sharing. I've bought hundreds of cds over the past few years and I can only think of a few times where I've downloaded an album instead of buying it. Does this grant me carte blanche to download at will? I'm not sure that I can make a logical argument in my favor.
Another argument that I bandy about when I'm feeling particularly guilty about stealing music goes a little sumpin' like this:
1. The music industry as it stands today is deeply corrupt. It's corruption manifests itself in various ways: high paid execs, low paid artists, pandering to a debased morality and cultural stupidity, encouraging American imperialism/hegemony, etc. In short, it embodies every reprehensible quality of our late capitalist economy.
2. File-sharing seems to have a detrimental effect on the music industry's ability to exist.
3. Perhaps file-sharing will ultimately bring the ruin of this industry, which, given point #1, would be a moral good (although only if its replacement is not worse than the original industry).
Then there's the argument that any sort of culture dissemination via capitalist channels is ultimately bad for art/culture because it places profit motive ahead of the integrity and quality of the art/culture. This argument relies on the assertion that culture/art is not a mere commodity, but carries some sort of educational value and is therefore deserving of something better than crass capitalist marketing and selling. Because culture/art has this educational character, we should support it like we support our other educational institutions (libraries, schools, etc), via tax payer funding and democratic decision-making, which do more to ensure its quality. Or so the argument goes.
Of course, the alternative to a capitalist culture industry is a state-run culture industry, which has its obvious problems (imagine a million more NEA-funded hacks like Karen Finley. Shudder.).
Tell me, O moral exemplars, do any of these arguments make sense? Or am I just trying to justify my theft ('cause no matter which way you look at it, that's what file-sharing is)?
Ben, you know the cultural marxist stuff. Throw me a brain-bone, will ya? What would Teddy Adorno say?