Write arguments for and against downloading.

Should downloading music be considered a crime?

Who hasn't downloaded the occasional song or film illegally from the internet? The question is, should we, as a society, consider piracy, or illegal downloading, a criminal offence?

Unsurprisingly, the entertainment industry thinks so. In 2008, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) convinced the biggest internet service providers to pursue and persecute on line abusers. The deal was even backed by the British government.

These government regulations to clamp down on piracy weren't only seen in the UK. France introduced a law which punished persistent abusers with a loss of internet access. In this case, potential culprits are first warned by ISPs. However, if they ignore the warning, they can face up to twelve months without internet access.

But, there are two sides to every story. Let's hear from them.

Yes – on-line piracy is a crime.

Would you walk into a music store, pick up a CD and leave without paying? No? Why not? Because it would be shoplifting which is a criminal offence. The same can be said for online piracy.

More importantly, you're stealing from the very people whose art you're enjoying. There are many struggling artists out there who depend on the public's support. Is it fair to take from them? Shouldn't we want to pay them in exchange for the pleasure they provide us with their music?

The sales the artists generate also affect the music business. If we continue to download music illegally, the whole music industry will run out of money. A 2009 digital report described a 16% drop in album releases by new artists in France. Another study reveals that in 1997, 78 million singles were sold in the UK compared to the previous year's 86 million. Surely, it's our social responsibility to support suffering industries. After all, it's not just about an industry losing money. Office workers in the industry could also lose their jobs.

No - online piracy isn’t a crime

Downloading music shouldn't be considered stealing but rather, copying. Mark Lemley, a copyright expert at Stanford University Law School sums it up like this, "If I take your physical property, I have it and you no longer do. If I copy your song, I have it, but so do you." It's that simple.

Anti-downloading protesters wrongly claim that the artists lose money to piracy. However, many unknown artists say that if their music is available on the internet for people to sample, they get the exposure they need.

Whether you download legally or illegally, someone benefits besides the artist. If done legally, the website that hosts the online music benefits as it receives a percentage of the takings. Let's take the example of iTunes. From the 99 cents that it costs to download a song Apple keeps a portion of the money. The rest goes to the label which then is distributed to the artists. So, once everyone takes their cut; the artist only sees a portion of that 99 cents anyway. The only difference between illegal and legal downloading is who benefits. If it is done legally, big business benefits. If done illegally, the public benefits. The artist earns more or less the same.

A study by music right holders says that the industry needs to stop resisting this new way of enjoying music. Maybe it’s time to admit that because of the world wide web, we need to accept that illegal downloading is only going to become more and more difficult to police.

So, each side has made their case. Whose side are you on?

 

59) What do the following numbers from the downloading debate refer to? [2008\ 2009 \ 16 \ 1997 \ 78 \ 86 \ 99]