Proximity, Tangibility and Crime with Regards to Downloading Music
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 by Hazel Gibson
The issue of copyright, especially in regards to downloading music and intellectual property rights is a very topical one that seems to get almost everyone fired up. It also seems to be an area of law that is so vague, intangible and subject to personal opinion that I feel it will be a very long time before any kind of consensus as to what is ‘right/legal’ and what is ‘wrong/illegal’ is decided upon.
Among my age group (early 20s) downloading music from the internet seems to be universally accepted. The only thing that would possibly stop you would be if you weren’t very good with computers. I remember the day I figured out how torrents work and where I could get them from… I was so happy! Yes! Free music for me! Not for one moment did any kind of moral or legal restrictions enter my mind as something that could prevent me from having the latest album by whoever…
Dominey Flores brings up an interesting point which I totally agree with: many people (especially, I would think, in a small country like New Zealand) will claim that it is wrong to download or rip music by local artists, but doing the same to hugely popular foreign artists on major record labels is fine, with the reasoning behind this being that local artists have more to lose in terms or royalties, where as huge pop stars are so rich anyway losing out on that extra $2 royalty they would have received won’t even put a dent in their massive fortunes.
I think where this idea comes from is a combination of the idea of proximity and the level of tangibility. For example, in the past I have purchased albums by local bands such as The Mint Chicks and Lawrence Arabia, both because I like the music and I felt it was good to support them through the purchasing of their music. This desire to ‘support’ them may come from the ‘proximity’ I feel with local bands… chances are I’ve been to several of their gigs, seen them walking around the city or even served them at the bar I work at. Music by the Rolling Stones, on the other hand, I have never paid for. I have also never seen them live, met them or felt any personal connection to them. And I’ve never felt guilty about downloading their stuff, either. With regards to tangibility, I think that downloading music or movies absolutely is not like stealing a handbag or a car, as the popular advert states. I reckon that if I could get a car for free with minimal effort, virtually no chance of being caught, and all my friends did the same thing then I probably would!
The article by Yar (2008) brings up the nature of law, which is relevant here. In this, she states that certain conducts being identified with crime depend on whether or not “the behaviour in question constitutes a breach of acceptable social norms, and that it partakes of some moral wrongdoing or injury that offends against a society and its members”. In the example I provided before, it would make sense that I am quite happy to download music from huge American bands, because it doesn’t feel like a crime. I don’t have a sense that I am breaching social norms because the actual ‘theft’ is so intangible, nor do I feel like I am personally injuring the Rolling Stones by downloading their music.
It’s a complex issue…
Among my age group (early 20s) downloading music from the internet seems to be universally accepted. The only thing that would possibly stop you would be if you weren’t very good with computers. I remember the day I figured out how torrents work and where I could get them from… I was so happy! Yes! Free music for me! Not for one moment did any kind of moral or legal restrictions enter my mind as something that could prevent me from having the latest album by whoever…
Dominey Flores brings up an interesting point which I totally agree with: many people (especially, I would think, in a small country like New Zealand) will claim that it is wrong to download or rip music by local artists, but doing the same to hugely popular foreign artists on major record labels is fine, with the reasoning behind this being that local artists have more to lose in terms or royalties, where as huge pop stars are so rich anyway losing out on that extra $2 royalty they would have received won’t even put a dent in their massive fortunes.
I think where this idea comes from is a combination of the idea of proximity and the level of tangibility. For example, in the past I have purchased albums by local bands such as The Mint Chicks and Lawrence Arabia, both because I like the music and I felt it was good to support them through the purchasing of their music. This desire to ‘support’ them may come from the ‘proximity’ I feel with local bands… chances are I’ve been to several of their gigs, seen them walking around the city or even served them at the bar I work at. Music by the Rolling Stones, on the other hand, I have never paid for. I have also never seen them live, met them or felt any personal connection to them. And I’ve never felt guilty about downloading their stuff, either. With regards to tangibility, I think that downloading music or movies absolutely is not like stealing a handbag or a car, as the popular advert states. I reckon that if I could get a car for free with minimal effort, virtually no chance of being caught, and all my friends did the same thing then I probably would!
The article by Yar (2008) brings up the nature of law, which is relevant here. In this, she states that certain conducts being identified with crime depend on whether or not “the behaviour in question constitutes a breach of acceptable social norms, and that it partakes of some moral wrongdoing or injury that offends against a society and its members”. In the example I provided before, it would make sense that I am quite happy to download music from huge American bands, because it doesn’t feel like a crime. I don’t have a sense that I am breaching social norms because the actual ‘theft’ is so intangible, nor do I feel like I am personally injuring the Rolling Stones by downloading their music.
It’s a complex issue…