Music piracy has been an issue for artists and record companies since before the new millennium. There are countless websites for peer-to-peer music sharing and anyone who knows how to use the internet can access these sites with ease. Both the availability and accessibility of sites such as 4shared and Mediafire led to the rise of illegal downloading. Piracy is illegal, and most people will not argue that. However, people who download have come up with justifications for doing it. These justifications point to a moral issue that comes caveat with piracy. Morality is an issue that people tend not to talk about when discussing piracy, but the few studies that discuss ethics present concerning results. Illegal downloading is not only illegal, but morally detrimental, as it shows that one can steal without consequence.

Before getting into the evidence and arguments, it is important to understand the scope of the problem of piracy. The information and statistics come from musicbusinessworldwide.com in an interview with an executive from the Recording Industry Association of America. Napster, which was the first widely available p2p file sharing service, became accessible to the public in 1999. Since then, music sales are down by around half. Over 30 billion songs were downloaded illegally from 2004 through 2009. When asked about the economic effects that come with music piracy, the RIAA spokesperson said, “Global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers’ earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.” Criminal charges for piracy include up to five years of jail time and a $250,000 fine, along with a felony on record (www.riaa.com). The consequences seem steep, but few are actually arrested for piracy. In fact, according to the Electronic Freedom Foundation, about 28,000 cases of piracy occurred between 2003 and 2008, which means there is a one in 8,129 chance of one being caught pirating music. These statistics all seem to point to a problem with society as a whole.

When people discuss illegally downloading music, it is typical for the debate to be focus on the economic effects on artists and record companies. When people discuss this issue, they tend only to look at piracy in a personal light, ignoring the problem in aggregate. This section will look at common counterarguments posed by people who defend illegally download music and the rebuttals to these points.

Defending piracy is a difficult thing to do, because it is known to be illegal. One of the most common justifications of piracy is that the song is just a copy, so it is not the same as physically stealing a CD. But in 2013, the amount of pirated and counterfeited goods worldwide was valued between $923 billion and $1.13 trillion, which was about the size of Spain’s economy in 2015 (www.frontier-economics.com). The music industry has been suffering for over fifteen years, and “the song is just a copy” is still used in justifying piracy. 

Many people like to think that piracy is not a big deal because musician and record companies are rich already, so losing a little money is not a big deal for these people. This argument is as common as it is selfish. Musicians spend countless hours writing, recording, and producing songs, and they deserve to get paid for their efforts. Just because some musicians turn large profits from songs does not give anyone the right to steal from them. Those who make this point see themselves as a “Robin Hood” of sorts, but they fail to see that many musicians do not make any money from music, and even those who do make money might need the money to continue to make music.

One more way people like to justify piracy is that they would not spend the money on music anyway. They explain piracy as a good thing, since they are promoting the music of an artist by play a song and getting others to buy the music in turn. Again, this argument is a broken one, since music sales went down by around 47% in the decade after Napster became publically available (www.musicindustryworldwide.com). There is no statistic that this thesis actually helps music sales, but every sign points to this argument being invalid. “Decreasing annual revenues have also led to less funding and more one-sided record contracts for aspiring musicians” (Tyler, 2103). With the rise of piracy, musicians who might have been able create a new style or sound may not be able to, since they cannot make enough money to support their music. This not only leads to less music being made, but also creates an environment where all music must follow a similar formula. This means that music consumer who enjoys more progressive sounds is negatively affected by piracy.

There are many other smaller arguments, but statistics will debunk the majority of the points people tend to make in favor of illegal downloading. Those who use these arguments only look at their own actions, and they see that they, as an individual or a small group of people, do not make an impact significant enough to affect the music industry as a whole.

All of the arguments for piracy are similar in key one way: they are all justifications of an illegal act, making this a moral issue. In the following sections, I will lay out the major ethical issue that comes from a culture of piracy and the factors that affect one’s willingness to illegally download music.

Music piracy promotes a culture of moral ambiguity. “Digital piracy…has serious costs and consequences for society, not the least of which is the apparent normalizing of illegal behavior” (Robertson, McNeill, Green, and Roberts, 215). These authors look at the effects of piracy on society and found that people who obtain their music illegally are more likely to commit other illegal acts. The normalization that comes from piracy make the problem worse, not only for musicians and record companies, but also for the individuals who partake. When huge numbers of people illegally download music, the culture of an entire society changes. People look at the problem as one that is too big make an impact, so one is more likely to contribute to it. 

The Hunt-Vitell General Theory of Marketing Ethics describes the ethical decisions that one makes when faced with a morally ambiguous situation. First, one will identify the situation as an ethical dilemma, then he considers any alternatives to the action, and finally he will make his decision based on personal and universal moral codes along with the perceived risk of consequences (Robertson, McNeill, Green, and Roberts, 216). This theory directly applies to the case of illegal downloading. Most people understand the piracy is illegal, but when a person finds himself in a situation when illegal downloading is an option, he will automatically go through steps of the Hunt-Vitell theory. Many people will make their decision when weighing the positive outcomes with the possible consequences, and since the chances of being caught are very low, people will tend to choose illegal downloading over purchasing music through legal means. 

People who illegally download music tend to have lower ethical codes. They are more willing to commit illegal acts after pirating music (Sinha and Mandel, 9). Illegally downloading music is a “gateway crime” of sorts. To explain this point, I will use the example of a candy bar. One who pirates music walks into a gas station to get a snack and sees a candy bar. This person knows that a candy bar cost about as much as a song on iTunes, so when he goes through the steps of the Hunt-Vitell Theory, he is more inclined to steal the candy bar than a person who purchases music through proper channels.

People who download tend to have lower ethical concern, and the reverse is also true.

 “A lack of ethical concern regarding consumer behavior in general, rather than ethical attitudes toward pirating specifically, is also associated with downloading” (Robertson, McNeill, Green, and Roberts, 222). People who are already engulfed in other morally ambiguous situations generally have a higher rate of illegal downloading. This is one of many factors that come into play when looking at who might 

Consumer characteristics play a key role in identifying those who are more likely to pirate music. “Digital music pirates tend to be young and male, and their likelihood of pirating increases with the price of the song, the popularity of the song, and the size of the bandwidth available” (Sinha and Mandel, 2). When one sits down to download a song or album, these characteristics come into play. When someone sees that a song costs more money than they are willing to spend, he might consider downloading illegally. People tend to “bargain shop,” and purchasing music is no different. A major consumer characteristic that affects the amount of piracy that occurs is stimulation. Piracy as a risk, and the thrill of risk make some people feel good. Also, new music stimulates some people, and with the price of CDs and digital copies of songs being relatively high, people tend to save money and download music instead. Young men generally need the highest level of stimulation, so piracy within that demographic are observed at the highest rate. These consumer characteristics played a key role in the rise of piracy over the last decade and a half. 

Social norms contribute to the amount of piracy that takes place at a certain time (Sinha and Mandel, 3). If one was told that it was unpopular to purchase music, he might end up downloading. This factor ties in with the consumer characteristics, as young people tend to feel the most peer pressure. Again, this explains why young people download music at the highest rate. But social norms can also discourage consumers from pirating as opposed to buying because the shame of being caught is high, and the punishments are harsh for those who are convicted. With a felony on record, a person will be seen in a different light in many situations, such as a job interview. In either case, social norms do affect the amount of illegal downloading that takes place at a certain time.

Right now, there are many ways to listen to music without having to purchase or pirate. Spotify and other music sharing apps and sites offer free accounts for users, but most of these sites have limited function for users unless they pay. But these sites have not helped to music industry in any significant way. Studies suggest that Spotify is not helping in any significant way in the end.

Luis Aguiar and Joel Waldfogel, the authors of the NBER study, find that, at least in the case of Spotify, streaming brings virtually no financial gain to the industry, but it also prevents losses. When looking the top songs each week and calculating how much rights holders were paid, researchers find that streaming usage increases music-industry revenue thanks to the ability to convert those who were either downloading illegally or not listening to tracks at all. But those gains are pretty much offset by streaming’s displacement of permanent track purchases or downloads. (www.theatlantic.com)

Any gain that came to artists from these music sharing services are basically mitigated because people are using these music sharing services instead of buying music. Artists such as Taylor Swift have spoken out about this since they are still losing money that they should receive for their songs. 

Chance the Rapper has come up with an idea that has been profitable while avoiding illegal downloading and still bringing himself good publicity. He offers all his music for free. Instead of making money from his songs directly, he turns a profit from selling merchandise and preforming live shows. He has been so successful with his approach that he has become a household name. He is the first musician to ever will a Grammy without selling a single song. The problem with this method of making money in the music industry is that Chance the Rapper is one of the most talented young artists in his genre. His music has been praised by many critics. Despite his success, this method would not work for smaller artists who cannot get the publicity that Chance the Rapper has received.

Music piracy is a societal problem. It takes money out of the hands of artists and promotes a culture of moral ambiguity. The music industry must come up with a solution that will appeal to both musicians and consumers alike. To come up with a solution, record companies, artists, and governing bodies must communicate with listeners and consumers to understand what would influence people to purchase music. A loyalty program might influence people who pirate to buy their music while giving people who already purchase music something to keep them from swaying towards illegal downloading. Without a feasible solution, both the music industry and society as a whole will suffer at the hands of peer-to-peer music sharing services.
