Consciousness Today: the Illegal Download Question
One of the primary markers of consciousness is the awareness that no man is an island; we are not alone, such that most things we do will have an effect on someone else.
I vividly remember sitting in my apartment in college, high-speed internet included in the rent I shared with three other people. Napster blew up, and I owned every song I could imagine and more. Eventually the stories came out about the RIAA fighting back and by the time I got to law school, colleges, students and grandmothers were being sued for downloading music and movies without permission and without paying.
I researched this issue to discern whether I could justify downloading in this manner any longer. I understand now that Limewire and similar services are legal because there is a lawful purpose, i.e., peers actual do send others files and information over these networks that do not violate state and federal laws. I also learned that media could be copied (in some instances) for the purposes of training and education. And even that sharing among family members could be justified. But, when I was downloading Zapp & Roger, it wasn’t for my mom and dad, it wasn’t to learn their techniques, and it wasn’t something I was ’sharing’ with someone else who was entitled to share it with me.
I have debated this issue with friends and family. I understand all the rationales: music companies charge too much, the artists already make enough, I’m not hurting anyone. But, all you have to do is watch the TLC Behind The Music to know they aren’t making as much as we think. And sure, CEO’s and music execs make tons of money but they aren’t the only ones involved.
No one is talking about Sharon in human resources, James in marketing or Luisa the file clerk at one of these music companies. They have families, too. And, as CD sales plummet and illegal downloading continues in spite of the availability of legal, online pay sites, there is a human cost to our actions. This question boils down to what we want our actions to say about us.
It doesn’t have to be called wrong or right, illegal or legal to be conscious of what we want the things we do to say about us. Do we want to say, “I can download this legally because (1) I am blessed and able, (2) this puts money into circulation that eventually comes back to me, and (3) this honors the work of musicians, technicians and printers that for the most part aren’t thought of?” Or do we want to say, “I have to get mine and I am not concerned about the people whose livelihoods are affected by my choice. ”
If the music costs too much the appropriate response and the appropriate message is sent by not purchasing it. And I put myself in the shoes of one of those artists. What if my legal services were available for pay on a website, but somehow someone found a way to hack into it and give it away for free? Sure, I could be a wildly successful and wealthy attorney because of my site, but it still would not entitle someone to appropriate my work in that manner.
We make conscious choices with our dollar. When we spend (most times) we are choosing to validate, encourage and express our support for a product or service. We are making a qualitative statement. And, I like to think that when I buy a Kirk Franklin album or Common video I am saying affirmatively, “thank you for the way this has blessed my life.” Now, I know there’s not a lot of time in the day to think about purchases and iTunes like that. But, that is what walking aware is all about: recognizing the power and the choice we have in each moment to contribute to the good in ourselves and others.
Only thing is I can't watch it at work. Maybe post a transcript for those of us that read ...
I understand your point about trying to be supportive simply because something like this has never been attempted before however ...
hilarious 
For goodness sake, it is only a game. Up until now, Resident Evil games have always been violent. There was ...
Awww, that photo is absolutely BEAUTIFUL!! :) 
All of you have the right idea about this word ''Nigger''but it has been so publicised that there is no ...
The business plan is most important in starting a business. It will also help if you started a business ...
IN FORBIDDEN SIREN YOU HAVE TO KILL ASIANS AND RESIDENT EVIL IS RACISM? Sorry but you guys are very very ...
My beautiful nephew! Much congrats Kim and Fredric...welcome to parenthood! 
@Asha
Everything is a product of the web design firm Bright Plum, although we did elicit some help from a talented ...
Comment by travis taylor on 15 March 2008:
Let’s look at this from another perspective. We keep hearing the industry whine and complain about all this so called illegal downloading that is taking down the music and movie industry, but there is another side to this story. What the media industries are facing are those “market forces” that they tell us control the oil market when the price goes up, and they make a killing in profits. This is the “market forces” argument on the flip side. The media companies sat on their rears when the technology to deliver their content changed right in front of them, and instead of staying ahead of the curve they did nothing. The price of CD’s remained high and did not ever change, but the technology of CD burners and blank media dropped, plus their 20th century marketing schemes were no match for internet.
When the light finally came on, it was too late because digital technology is about choice. Napster changed the landscape because it offered “consumers” the ability and the freedom to choose what you wanted and not be force feed what the record labels wanted you to have, and it was convenient; no more going to the mall and dealing with those awful cd trays.
The heads of these companies were the bomb back in the post industrial age, but now they are irrelevant so they turned everything over to the lawyers. The DMCA was passed to slow down the users of technology until a new plan could be formed, but without a firm understanding of technology they miscalculated again. The illegal downloading has hurt the industry, but not near the levels that they complain about. Remember, back in the day, when every song on the album was good. Record labels have followed their corporate counter parts in creating crap and selling it as gold. Everybody is using Pro Tools and other digital technology, not to enhance or extend talent, but to compensate for the lack thereof.
Enter Itunes and the legal download services. Walmart is the number one retailer of music, but Apple is hot on their tale because Apple has a knack for locking into what the consumer likes. If the music companies are doing such a great job for their artist, why are some of the biggest artist leaving the antiquated models of our record companies and switching to other means. Maddona just dumped her record label and turned her marketing and concert handling to someone outside the industry. Apple will now exclusively be JayZ’s distributor. Everybody gets it except the media companies.
People will buy music legally when its produced right, marketed right and the consumer kept in mind, people will respond, just look at Apple and the Ipod. The bottled water industry is the best example. We pay $3 or more at concert venues, festivals and outings for something that on a certain level is free because of how its marketed.
Now they are attempting to get their control back by coming out against ‘net neutrality’ legislation. The claim that P2P software such as Bit Torrent chokes network resources, but nothing is further from the truth. Bit Torrent are one of the most efficient ways of distributing large files. Yes, people are using them to move illegal files across the net, but others are distributing self produced music, independent films and tv shows and open source software. This is a threat to media outlets who want to control distribution. It was the media outlets’ monopoly on distribution that put a strangle hold on the industry, but the net has changed that and put it back into the hands of the people.
The bottom line is that people are not buying music because there is not a lot of good music to buy, and the methods of buying are no longer in the hands of the media kingpins.
Comment by GIB on 15 March 2008:
Travis, I think you are absolutely right about the “whys” of how the music industry has changed and the music companies have fallen behind.
However, there are two sentences I would like to address:
“People will buy music legally when its produced right, marketed right and the consumer kept in mind, people will respond, just look at Apple and the Ipod.”
“The bottom line is that people are not buying music because there is not a lot of good music to buy, and the methods of buying are no longer in the hands of the media kingpins.”
If a consumer illegally downloads Rihanna’s “Umbrella” they have made the judgment that it is produced and marketed right. And, since Rihanna’s “Umbrella” is available on iTunes and numerous other legal, pay sites, that consumer has made the choice to profit him or herself over the rights and entitlement of another.
As to the second, I don’t know that I would say people are not buying music because there is not a lot of good music to buy. Whatever music we want on our burned CD, iPod or mp3 player is “good” in our eyes. If we have deemed it “good” that means it has a value to us. If we then seek it out, and we have the choice to download it illegally or purchase it legally, many are choosing to download it illegally even though the market suggests that current pricing and availability meets with the expectations of consumers (see the rampant success of iTunes and Walmart as you mentioned). So there are consumers who are finding music “good,” but still foregoing legal, fair methods of obtaining it.
That the methods are no longer in the hands of the kingpins should encourage and relieve the consumer that since he or she has been given more choice and freedom, many, if not ALL, of the arguments for downloading illegally are no longer relevant, and the shift you mention with Madonna, Jay-Z, and the industry as a whole is proof of that.
Comment by DaddyJama on 19 March 2008:
I think in the comment you both are saying the same things. You both said people only download good things. To travis’s point, you do download the good stuff, but you dont have to download the CRAP. How many times have you enjoyed EVERYsong on a CD. How many movies have we seen where all the good parts are on the previews and you end up walking out. Companies have done everything for gimmicks. Music, MOvie, Food, Drug, etc. gimmicks to get consumers to buy. Everyso often you get the one song, or the one moive, or the one drug, that acually provides a good experience. THose are the ones people go after withough having to go through the red tape and -money foolishly spent- on gimmicks and catch phrases and advertising to get to something.
Comment by Travis on 19 March 2008:
If a consumer illegally downloads Rihanna’s “Umbrella” they have made the judgment that it is produced and marketed right. And, since Rihanna’s “Umbrella” is available on iTunes and numerous other legal, pay sites, that consumer has made the choice to profit him or herself over the rights and entitlement of another.
As I stated earlier about the technology piece, the use of technology to make up for the lack of talent has caused a dumbing down of the listener. The problem with cyber ethics is generational. Now, I am not saying the Rhianna is not talented, but there are those in the industry that make millions, but have no talent to save their lives. This generation does not care so much about marketing or musicality in order to be pleased with today’s music. Also according to surveys, the majority of this generation believes that it is okay to download music illegally on the internet. I buy from Itunes because my background is in music. I have been trained to know what music is supposed to sound like, and I am not thoroughly pleased even with Itune’s treatment of the sound files, but I know what I am getting with Apple as opposed to P2P files. It may be good; it may not be. Bottom line, it is the buying experience that gets the consumer. The media companies have destroyed the buying experience.
Comment by GIB on 25 March 2008:
i don’t think it matters whether the music can be called “good” or not. i don’t think it matters if a consumer thinks the “buying experience” is enticing or enjoyable. i don’t think it matters that a generation may think it’s ok. for me, the bottom line is, is the practice of taking someone else’s work and using it without giving credit or compensation a practice that i would like to see more of in the world?