Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
Most Pepperdine students probably have at least one or two songs someplace on their computer that were obtained illegally, despite the common argument from the music industry that peer-to-peer file sharing is stealing. It’s illegal. It’s immoral. It financially hurts the artists.
It’s true that the record executives and artists alike are taking a monetary hit because people are just clicking “download” on KaZaA instead of traditionally buying albums.
But besides all the legalities, downloaders must realize that each time they download they are destroying the artists’ integrity.
When an album is produced, songs are put in order by the producer, the artists or the record company. The songs are not randomly arranged.
This is because an album should be listened to all the way through.
Consistently, I read or hear about how bands only let one member of the band place the tracks in order. Others obviously plan because one song will lead into the next. Bands actually do this. Listen to The Beatles’ “Abbey Road” or Green Day’s “Dookie.”
Basically, downloading music defeats this. With file sharing, someone can go online and get track seven and nine from a certain album without hearing track eight. There is no context for the songs to be placed into. The people who made and own this music want it presented in a certain way.
When this doesn’t happen is when the true crime takes place.
But wait, with this logic anyone could just look up the track list, download the songs and put them in correct order on a burned CD. First of all, this would take a lot more effort. Even if they tried to find all the songs on a file sharing program, many lesser known songs could not be found on the Internet, making this option close to impossible.
Another problem with downloading is actually having the CD cover and liner notes.
Yes, these are parts of the album too.
Look at the covers of a few different CDs. Britney Spears’ will not look like Black Sabbath’s and Pearl Jam’s will not be close to a Dixie Chicks’ cover. Some bands put their albums in special cases or include a handy lyric book. When a fan listens to an album, they are expected to have all of these in front of them. It is part of the experience.
It’s a thrill to go to a record store after waiting so long for that day, paying with the money saved specifically for the album, ripping open the CD wrapping and putting it in the car CD player before driving out of the parking lot. Downloading music totally underrates this experience.
But despite all these problems with peer-to-peer file sharing, it still has a place in the music world. Rap metal group Limp Bizkit’s tour was free because it war sponsored by Napster on tour. Thus the band obviously backs such programs. File sharing also promotes smaller bands without record labels.
However, not every band is as relaxed about sharing its property with the public, and with good reason. We have to honor these groups’ wishes.
The Dave Matthews Band fell victim to file sharing when the Lillywhite Sessions, a half-baked music project, was spread via the Internet. The band decided to abandon the project, but within days anyone could listen to the music against the band’s wishes. This music was not meant for public consumption, but because of a few disrespectful fans the wishes of the band were not upheld.
Phish has recently put its music on its official Web site for fans to purchase. If a band wanted people to have its music for free or for purchase online, they would put the music on the official web site.
When music is downloaded illegally, art is destroyed. Albums are carefully crafted masterpieces and when they are broken, they are not given the proper respect.
The moral is to take only what the artist wants to give.
Submitted January 16, 2003
MALIBU, CA
