The ethical quandry of file sharing...

I admit it. I'm a bootlegger. I have a lot of music on hard drive that has been downloaded from various sites over the years. I've also deleted a lot of music from the same hard drive as I either didn't like it or was disinterested in it. Quite a bit of it was music from my youth and I thought it would be fun to reminisce. I found I'd rather take out the vinyl version and spin it on my old turntable. That is reminiscing.

Anyhow, as for the modern day incarnation of file sharing, by and large I don't see the issue as anything other than profit. As a kid, I'd borrow friends' records and record them onto cassette to play in the car. I had about two dozen mix tapes labeled by overall mood. When CDs came out I still recorded them onto cassette as CD players in the car still didn't exist or were out of my price range. While I do have some Windham Hill records that speak out against the practice of recording onto tape, I can't recall that I ever gave it much thought. Eventually, recordable CDs came along and it was just a continuation of the same.

But it was all dependent upon knowing someone who had music to borrow. It was a very physical act.

Then came the explosion of the Internet and the digital file. Napster, of course, is the poster child for the debate. Morpheus, Limewire, Kazaa, I've tried them all. Too slow. Too many crappy files. Too much of a headache. Too inconsistent. There are other methods of downloading entire files much faster and much cleaner.

But it all depends on individuals who opt to share the music. They must put the music out there. If it is out there, people will download it. It's that simple. Punishing the end user won't stop it, just like punishing the drug user won't stop drug abuse. In other words, it is here to stay.

I've been on a 40 day fast from downloading music. I'm amazed at how much time it took up, not only downloading but organizing the files and moving them back and forth onto my mp3 player to listen to at work. A lot of distraction in the process. And with so much music, I'm not sure I actually enjoy it. It's basically a commodity.

So the fast has been good. I'm not sure I'll go back.

However, after a few weeks I've begun to contemplate the ethical component of downloading music for free. Is it really unethical? I don't sell my music to anyone and it's rare when I actually copy it for anyone, other than for my wife or daughter to play on their mp3.

And, yes, I've actually purchased some of the music I've downloaded because I wanted the quality of a CD recording rather than a ripped version. I was also interested in the artwork. I wanted the tangible package. By and large, I can't see purchasing an mp3 and ay accompanying artwork. I want to feel it. As a child of vinyl, I want the package deal if I'm going to pay for it.

I've seen the charts breaking down how much an artist makes on the sale of one CD. It ain't much. The reason for the fuss is more about the management end of the artist as the majority of the money is eaten up in the management food chain before the artist sees a penny. I suppose that's why ethically I don't give it a whole lot of thought.

If I buy a CD I buy it used off of ebay. The artist never sees a penny of that. Yet someone is profiting off of ebay so there is no fuss there. Why not fuss over the sale of used CDs? Granted, someone had to buy it in the first place. But I don't buy new CDs. Ever.

So in terms of downloading music, I suppose ethically I'm not convinced. As a writer, however, I have begun to contemplate the question as to how one is supposed to make money from their art. Is this the motive? Is it about the money? Or is the money a necessity to continue the art? How would I feel if everyone downloaded something I wrote and no one bought it? How would I continue to write if it was my means of existence? Or is that the point? Should it in fact be a means of existence or a side venture, a derivative, of something else?

As for musicians, does it come from tours? After all, the Grateful Dead, for example, allowed tapers at their shows. Their tapes were traded en masse. Yet the GD were shrewd businessmen. They had an entire organization behind them and they made lots of money on things other than their recorded music.

So I'm ambivalent. I see the artist side of view. They work hard for their craft and it is reasonable to expect to pay for this. But (and there is always a but) to pay $15 for a CD, especially knowing how much it costs, is crazy. So too to support an artist by having to pay $100 for a ticket. I used to pay $12-20 for concert tickets not too many years ago. There is no artist I would pay $100 to see. Not one.

I understand that in this day and age in order to be a super artist requires a large corporation with lots of resources to promote such an artist and everything is biggie sized. Large arenas with as many people as possible charging the maximum amount to maximize profit with the least amount of cost. I get that. It's just a business.

But from an ethical point of view, is it wrong? I am as of yet unconvinced. However, I am realizing the insidious nature of having the freedom to download anything and everything freely. It just brings awareness to the unlimited nature of our desire. I can't afford to buy everything I WANT so I download it for free.

Perhaps the real issue isn't one of ethics but one of desire.