Downloading music without permission is an example of theft and is immoral: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

About IDEA | About Debate | Teaching Tools | Publications | Store | Events | Join IDEA | Programs and Projects | Donate | Contact Us
Need help? | Register Now

Downloading music without permission is an

Intro to Debatabase example of theft and is immoral print this page
Debatabase Junior Debatabase Junior Topic Discuss topic
Contributing Topics
Summary: Is downloading music without permission from the internet
Commission Topics wrong?
My Topics
Submit Topic Introduction
Suggest Topic Author:Daniël Schut ( Netherlands ) Daniël Schut was both a Worlds and Euros ESL finalist in 2006
and won the Oxford IV ESL final in 2005. He lives in Amsterdam.

Created: Saturday, January 09, 2010

Last Modified: Monday, May 31, 2010

Context
Until the 1990s, copying music was a tedious task: you needed to go out and buy an album. If you
wanted to copy it, you needed to buy a cassette and then play the entire album while the cassette was
recording it. \r\nTwo developments changed this: one was the invention of easily copyable audio-file
formats, most notably MP3. This allowed music-lovers to copy a song with the click of a mouse-button.
The second was the spread of the internet, and with it special software which consumers could use to
share files, like peer-to-peer-software (p2p, torrents) and Usenet-groups (with the NZB-filesharing
method). Now, everyone could both copy and distribute music very easily.\r\nIt is important to
understand the difference between “distributing” music and “copying” music. Distributing means making
the music available for other people, either for profit or not. This is in any case illegal, because even if
you buy a copy of a song legally, you never have permission to pass the song on to other people. In the
context of peer-to-peer software, uploading is the same as distributing. \r\nCopying means making a
2011 Bosnia and Herzegovina copy of a song or album for your own use. Before the MP3-format and the internet, making a copy was
Leadership Program a little bit of a grey area. You were allowed to make a copy for private and personal use, but legally
Exact dates TBA. Eighteen speaking only under the following three conditions (this is called the Berne three-step test, after the
high school students and three Berne Convention which laid it down):\r\n1. copying is only allowed in “certain special cases”\r\n2.
teachers from Bosnia and copying should not mean that the artist who produced the music cannot exploit their work normally\r\n3.
Herzegovina (BiH) attend the
copying should not hurt the lawful interests of the rightsholder (this is often seen as meaning that the
highly interactive Youth
Leadership Program and private copy exception is only allowed when there is also a way of charging for the private copies being
accompanying Teacher made, so that the artist gets some payment) \r\n\r\nBefore the internet other forms of copying were
Professional Development considered illegal, but probably you would never become involved with any other forms of copying,
Program, in Salem, Oregon, unless you actually became a professional (criminal!) music pirate with a factory in your backyard,
and Washington, DC. copying and cranking out music CDs for your own profit. But, as noted above, the internet changed all
More about this event that by making it easy for anyone to copy and distribute music files.\r\nToday uploading music without
permission is globally considered illegal. Downloading without permission is considered illegal in most
but not all countries (i.e. in the Netherlands until 2009, it was legal to download under the private copy
exception. Just recently, the Dutch government announced they would make downloading without
permission illegal there too). This casefile only examines the case of downloading, not uploading.

Arguments

Slovak Debate Association: Pros Cons

Bratislava Schools'
Theft is taking something from someone who is the Theft always involves a thief taking something away
Competition
rightful owner without their permission. It doesn’t for themselves with the result that the original owner
The Slovak Debate matter if the rightful owner keeps an original version or can’t use it anymore. For example, if I steal your bike,
Association would like to invite
not. If you are downloading music from an unofficial you can’t use it anymore. And this is exactly why theft
you to the international
Bratislava Schools Debating source, you are stealing it: you can start listening to is wrong: you had something which you wanted to
Competition. The tournament that song, without the permission of the original use, and now you can’t anymore, simply because I
will take place from 7th to 11th owner. The only way you can get the right to listen to took it.
April 2011 in Slovakia’s capital that song is via a legal transaction from which the That’s why downloading music is not theft because it is
city (yep, you guessed it) rights owner can make a profit. a form of copying. You download a copy from an
Bratislava. original, but the first owner still has the original on his
More about this event or her computer, and can still enjoy it. In more
complicated terms: music files are “non-rival” goods,
meaning that my use of the good does not diminish
your future use of it.

Because the artist made the song, it is their property, Realistically speaking, music is not even property - for
in this case “intellectual property”. Property means property to really be property, it needs to be tangible
that the owner/artist has the right to ask something (something physical you can touch). If it is tangible, it

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Downloading%20music%20without%20permission%20is%20an%20example%20of%20theft%20and%20is%20immoral.htm[3/31/2011 9:39:59 PM]

Downloading music without permission is an example of theft and is immoral: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

from you in exchange for you gaining access to the is easier to keep you from using it, whereas when it is
HWS / IDEA Round Robin music. This may be money. It may also be the intangible, I can’t. What if you hear a song on the radio
requirement that you clearly recognize the artist’s which stays in your head all day long because you
In the HWS / IDEA round
moral right to always be mentioned as the creator of liked it so much? In economic terms, we call such a
robin the International Debate
Education Association and that song. This is called the “free exchange of value”, good “non-excludable”.
Hobart and William Smith and this is the most fundamental relationship in our Private property is both a rival good (see above), and
Colleges are bringing together free market economy. excludable. The above shows that music is neither,
an elite and internationally Whatever the artist chooses as payment through a even though we happen to call it “intellectual
diverse group of debaters and legal transaction, it is his/her basic right to ask this of property”. That means that music can’t be private
adjudicators for a weekend of
you. The only way to make sure that he/she can property, and copying it can’t really be theft in any
debate at the highest level.
actually exercise that right is by making sure you only normal sense of the word (see above)
More about this event take music from the artist through a legal transaction, In addition, the moral right of the artist to be known as
i.e. with their permission. Only then can we be sure the author of a piece of music is also not broken by
that the desired free exchange of value has taken downloading. People usually sort the music on mp3-
place. players by musician’s name, which means that we’re
always recognizing that a certain artist made a certain
song.

Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not
societal reason why it is wrong to download music true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the
IDEA Exchange 2011 – Vilnius without permission. The reason is that musicians have money spent on music goes to record companies, not
15-17th April! to eat, too. Suppose you are an up-and-coming young to artists. Those record companies have been keeping
If you are interested in making musician thinking about what to do with your future. musicians on a leash for decades, paying them less
a positive change in your You can either become a full time musician or take up than they could. They paid them enough to make sure
community, if you are working a job. If you become a fulltime musician, you’ll be they would remain fulltime musicians, but not so much
or volunteering for the doing what you love. But at the same time, everyone that they didn’t bother to create new albums. So if
promotion of the values of an will be downloading all your music for free, simply downloading music files means record companies
open society, if you are
because they can. This means that music won’t be a miss out on some income, we shouldn’t feel bad about
interested in debate –
competitive and non- good, stable source of income for you, and this it.
competitive, if you would like means you’d rather take up a job. Since you’re not
to meet other working on your music every day, your talent will be
More about this event underdeveloped, and the little pieces of music you do
write, for example in the weekend, are not as good as
they could have been. So, downloading music without
permission will lead to fewer good musicians. That’s
not only bad for the musicians, but also for us: we’ll
have less good music to listen to.

Downloading does not fall under the so-called “private Downloading music without permission is allowed
Estonian Debating Society copy exception”. The private copy exception only under the “private copy exception”. Practically, the
and IDEA join forces to covered those rare cases when you took the effort to exception meant that you were allowed to copy, but
organize Estonia Open 2011! make a copy from a lawful source (perhaps putting a not distribute any music. Downloading music from a
Estonian Open 2011 will be song you owned on CD on to a cassette so you could torrentsite or newsgroup is essentially the same.
held in British Parliamentary listen to it in your car). With the internet, the situation People who download music do it purely for their own
Style: 5 preliminary rounds changed hugely. Firstly, copying became a lot easier. enjoyment and use. They have no intention to resell
with 5-minute speeches, Secondly, the home copy-exception applies to when the songs and make a profit from it. So, if it was legal
followed by semi-finals and you borrow an album from a friend - someone you to make a copy for personal use before the internet
Grand Final with 7-minute know. Online, you’re downloading from anyone, was invented, why then should it suddenly be different
speeches. Team cap for the
anywhere who happens to have the song you want. afterwards? And when it comes to peer-to-peer
tournament is 36 and N-1
judging rule applies for the Thirdly, when you start downloading using peer-to- software, you can turn off the option to upload
teams. Chi peer software, you will usually also start uploading at automatically. This allows you to only download, but at
the same time. It’s the nature of p2p-technology that a slower speed.
More about this event
you both distribute and consume. So, you’re not just
making a copy for yourself, you will also be
distributing the same song, and that distribution is in
any case wrong. These changes together mean that
the three step-test is not met, so downloading does
not fall under the private copy exception and is
therefore illegal.

The home-copy exception was only put into law on Even if downloading would lead to less income for
the condition that there would be a charge, or levy, on musicians, it’s important to realize that most musicians
the devices used for copying (see condition 3 of the are not in it for the money. They are artists: creative
three-step test). This levy in turn would be used to people who do it for the love of their art. They create
compensate artists for the income they missed music because they want other people to listen to it
because someone copied, instead of bought, their and enjoy it. This means they will keep making music,
album. There is no such levy on the internet or on our even when there is little money to be made from it.
computers, which means there is no fair compensation Even better, with the internet every talented musician
available. Since there is no fair compensation now has the means to spread their music all across
available, it is wrong to allow downloading from illegal the world without having to wait for a record deal!
sources.
This also explains why record companies use Digital
Rights Management (DRM) to limit copying of audio
files. Since there is no levy on every player or carrier,
they have to make sure their material does not get
unto those platforms. Hence the protection: it might

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Downloading%20music%20without%20permission%20is%20an%20example%20of%20theft%20and%20is%20immoral.htm[3/31/2011 9:39:59 PM]

Downloading music without permission is an example of theft and is immoral: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

seem unfair but it’s the next best thing after the lack of
fair compensation.

Record companies have been blamed for unfair Even if downloading is illegal, it still is right from a
practices, like DRM, “milking” artists (see opposition moral viewpoint. The reason is that by downloading,
argument 3), or suing individual downloaders for you’re not hurting the artists, but the record
unfair damages. But record companies also have a companies. And these record companies have
very positive role to play: they scout every day for new engaged in unfair practices towards consumers for
talent, and offer training and production studios for decades. They asked €20 euros for a CD, when a
up-and-coming musicians. Moreover, they provide blank CD only costs about 5 cents. They still engage
valuable marketing services, making sure that new in unfair practices, for example via DRM. DRM stands
artists get heard instead of drowning in the vast sea of for Digital Rights Management, and it means that
information that is the internet. Consider this, how don companies limit how and when you can listen to a
you even know which song to download? A large part song. For example, you can buy a song and listen to it
of that is because record companies get the music out on your MP-3 player, but if you want to play it on your
there, on to radio stations, all over MySpace, on MTV, laptop, you have to buy the same song again.
so that you get to hear it for the first time. Those are Moreover, record companies have sued individual
things a musician is not trained to do and very often consumers for huge fines for downloading just a few
does not want to do, which is why it is good to have songs. Most recently one ordinary woman was fined
record companies. $1.92 million dollars, which just doesn’t add up to the
“damage” these individuals are supposed to have
done. That’s unfair, and because it’s unfair, we are
justified in download without permission.

It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, Actually, downloading songs could mean more income
there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. for musicians. Concerts (plus merchandise like T-
Torrentsites and other “pirate” sites gain huge shirts) are becoming a bigger source of income. But
amounts of income from the advertisements on their suppose a new musician comes to town. How am I
site. This means that they profit from material which is supposed to know if I want to go to their concert if I
not theirs. Why should they profit from material they don’t know their music? Previously, I wouldn’t have
have gotten unfairly and without permission? gone since I didn’t want to spend money on first
buying their album and then buying the ticket. Now, I
can quickly check out their music by downloading
some songs to see if I like it, and then go to their
concert. I save money on the albums, and will go
more to concerts.

Motions
This House would make downloading without permission legal
This House believes that downloading is not theft
This House believes that the internet makes copyright obsolete
This House believes that record companies are unnecessary
This House would abolish intellectual property
This House would legalize file-sharing
That file-sharing over the internet should be legalized

Useful Sites
IVIR on DRM - IVIR is a Dutch research institute which specializes in intellectual property: their website is a
treasure trove of analysis, research and opinions (fairly accessible)
Law and Information – Harvard blogger focuses specifically on law for the “information society”. It’s a bit
broader then just about “downloading music”, but their information and links are very good (more
demanding)
Berne convention online - text of the Berne convention, which forms the basis for intellectual property
regimes worldwide, online. Heavy legal text, but worth skimming through at least once (demanding)
RIAA - Unsurprisingly, the recording industry also provides information. This is what the RIAA has to say
about piracy (fairly accessible)
The Pirate Bay, a formerly famous downloadsite, publishes their legal correspondence. It’s a nice view
“from the trenches”, so to speak, and will help you understand the debate better
CBBC Newsround teaching resources with links (very accessible)
Times Online article (accessible)
Headliners article (very accessible)

Useful Books
The Illustrated Story of Copyright
By: Edward Samuels
Irresistible forces: The Business legacy of Napster
By: Trevor Merriden
Appetite for self-destruction. The Spectacular crash of the record industry in the digital age
By: Steve Knopper
The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Revolution
By: David Kusek
The Future of the Music Business: Music Pro Guide

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Downloading%20music%20without%20permission%20is%20an%20example%20of%20theft%20and%20is%20immoral.htm[3/31/2011 9:39:59 PM]

Downloading music without permission is an example of theft and is immoral: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions

By: Steve Gordon

Themes
Science and Technology

Discuss
View the full discussion

Author Post

aikoman Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:03 am

Member
It is impossible to find out downloading music from the internet without permission.
Today, Internet system is very complex, so there are many ways to download music
illigaly. We can't stop this situation. We have to think not how to solve this problem
but how to protect music efficiently.

shafiqah Posted: Tue Mar 2, 2010 03:17 am

Member
i am very interested with this moyion. hoping that this such motion will be debating in
the parliamentary style debate .

rajesh005.703 Posted: Thu Feb 4, 2010 11:16 am

Member
after the internet started therer are many question arised ther are many issues that
came for downloading the songs it is issues which is not only arouse in indain but
many other coutries also this issues are manily arose due to this related problems we
have to take necesary action to publish our web site a film industy which is facing the
realated problems are consider to be part of the console which is the mainly related to
public issues in the market and more thsi is highly realted to the issues which has
arouse before in the stablitiy in the market

Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion

Home Privacy Statement Contact Us Terms and Conditions

IDEA Inc. and the Dutch registered IDEA are separate organizations that operate independently yet cooperate informally with each other. This website, a
joint presentation, is intended to promote both organizations' interests while maintaining their respective independence.

Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative License.
Queries: IDebate Webmaster.

file:///C|/Users/User/Desktop/Debatebase/Downloading%20music%20without%20permission%20is%20an%20example%20of%20theft%20and%20is%20immoral.htm[3/31/2011 9:39:59 PM]