I’ve been wanting to make a case for why freely downloading music using the internet might be morally justifiable. For a start I prefer to call it sharing (peer-to-peer) rather than downloading which gives it a different sense. Here are some thoughts:

1. Over the past 50 years the music industry has come to be dominated by the recorded work. The main reason for this is that music is easily commodified when it is recorded. It can be converted into a physical item and sold for a standard price in conventional market conditions. This way the infinite complications of an artist’s life and work are simplified and translated into something tangible. It has become such that this is now the singular method for how music’s relationship with the world is conducted. That’s fine. I can accept that and understand the reasoning and the history of why it has come to be that way. I think though that it doesn’t have to be the only means and measure of how music is organised or appreciated. We should embrace alternative methods beyond market forces. Sharing of music for example has a long tradition, much longer than the recorded work and the commodification of art. In some ways the internet opens up that noble tradition of people sharing. It just happens to cut across the more recent conventions of copyright ownership and turning art into a commodity.

2. The music business is damn near medieval. All the power is concentrated at the top. The wealth is mostly owned by a tiny percentage of participants i.e. major labels and successful artists and writers. All the others are struggling for a foothold and are usually penniless. The music industry is far from any great egalitarian institution concerned for the well-being of the artists and art form in its charge. In Branson’s words it is the ‘most ruthless form of capitalism’. This contrasts with other institutions in society where there is an evolved middle ground with a recognised and stable career structure. Anyone going into music as a creative under the current system has to be driven to it or just mad in some way.

3. It is argued that sharing is substantial income lost to the music industry. This will be true to some extent but I suspect is exaggerated. The assumption is that every download is a potential sale lost when in fact that is most unlikely. The idea that if you didn’t download it you’d go and buy it is nonsense. You would mostly just forget it. Actually by downloading you’re getting to have a relationship with work you’d otherwise not. In this way sharing is a form of promotion. You’re likely to talk about it to others.

4. How about the criticism that with less income major labels are unable to finance new artists? This is harder to argue against if it can be shown that less revenue would actually mean less investment for new acts. Maybe it does. BUT.... the current system only supports a tiny minority of the available artist pool anyway leaving the rest unheard and under-developed. This hardly recommends it as an industry broadly concerned with music and the plight of up and coming creatives. Also the resources squandered on these few signings would equal the gross income of small nations. Not to mention that these singings are usually penniless anyway only ever making money if they sell huge numbers of records. And that's always the exception. Perhaps a better system, one centred less around commodity and more based on the intrinsic communal spirit of music could make better use of a broader range of the available talent as well as adopting better fiscal measures. Companies and institutions employing artists and writers rather than signing them might be an idea.

SUMMARY:

• Commodification of music is not absolute. What people are doing is sharing it rather than stealing it and sharing has a noble tradition. The internet brings it back again as a possibility.

• The music industry is backward in its structures and could do with some serious thinking outside the box. The popularity of peer-to-peer is an indicator of other possibilities.

• A music file shared isn’t an otherwise sale. It can actually be a useful form of promotion.

• There are very few signings and massive sums are wasted on bad choices. A revised system is needed such as employing rather than signing.