TL;DR: The culture behind music streaming is increasing by the millions, and although criticized for its minuscule salary, has the potential to eliminate the motivation and frequency of music piracy.

Music piracy lies in the center of an ethical debate. To some, illegally downloading that catchy song heard blaring from the the radio is an immoral crime against the music industry. To others, pirating music is hardly a crime that millions around the world do not give second thought to. Despite the debatable nature of its ethicality, it is undeniable that music piracy is costing the industry billions of dollars every year, depriving musicians of album sales and career success.

However, if music piracy is financially damaging its creators because they are not receiving payment for albums and singles, how can Chance the Rapper, a Chicago-born rapper worth five million dollars, achieve monumental success without selling a single song?

By avoiding the confinement of a record label, Chance the Rapper, like many artists, found worldwide success by simply sharing his music online for free; thus, the rapper’s expanding popularity lead to skyrocketing ticket sales, corporation partnerships, and winning three Grammy awards. Chance’s success is exemplary of the abundant power of streaming and downloading music online, whether legal or pirated, and how such virtual interaction can lead to financial success without selling albums.

So, is music piracy really a penalizing crime? And, is there any feasible solution to end it?

To gain more insight to such controversial questions, I interviewed two first-year students at Allegheny College about their societal viewpoints and personal experience with music piracy. With 95% of the top U.S Universities pirating software, I had no hesitation that the two college students are not only surrounded by illegal downloading but frequently commit the crime. Confirmed through preliminary questioning, both students actively pirate software and, more specifically, have a history of illegally downloading countless hours of music. While the fear of federal authority and moral opposition has kept both individuals from stealing physical property outside of the internet, Ethan and Brian were more than willing to open up about their experience breaking the law with piracy. Transitioning from a set of preliminary yes or no questions, the avid music followers were assessed on both their knowledge and opinion of illegally downloading music.

“What is your definition of digital piracy?”

Ethan: “Internet piracy is illegally acquiring any file otherwise sold commercially.”

Brian: “It is the illegal download of any software in which the company requires its users to pay for.”

“Utilizing your definition, have you ever pirated music?

Ethan: “Yes of course.”

Brian: “Oh, definitely.”

“Do you have even the slightest fear of facing legal consequences for piracy?”

Ethan: “Of all of the things I am afraid of, that is not one of them. The group mentality of illegally downloading music removes its stigma; because there are millions illegally pirating software, I feel comfortable existing in the masses as the likelihood of legal authorities personally targeting me is low.”

Brian: “No, there are far too many people pirating music for the illegality of it to impact me.”

Confirming Shoshana Altschuller and Raquel Benbunan-Fich’s theory that “society seems to be repelling its own behavioral guidelines,” both students contradicted their initial statement of not identifying themselves as criminals by acknowledging the illegality of the pirating they commit. However, unlike Altschuller and Benbunan-Fich’s belief that a “struggle ensues between society and its conscience,” Ethan and Brian did not express any concern for legal repercussions of music piracy or shame for breaking the law. Such lack of apathy can be contributed to the common notion that it is almost impossible for legal penalties as millions are pirating worldwide; thus, as Altschuller and Benbunan-Fich state, “the temptation to download is greater than the existing legal mechanisms to restrain it.” Also, with the existence of sites like PirateBay and uTorrent attracting millions of users a day, downloading music has become easier and more universal than ever. When asked his opinion on the cause for its immense global popularity, Ethan confessed the simplicity behind music torrents: “Pirating music is absurdly easy; I once downloading the entire Doors discography in one sitting. There is no complex process behind it; you simply acquire the song and consume.”

Expanding further into the intrinsic motivation behind music piracy, I proceeded to ask a simple and direct question.

“Why didn’t you just buy the music?”

Ethan: “I did not buy it because I could not afford to purchase music at the rate I was consuming it.”

Brian: “Music is too expensive. I most likely saved myself thousands of dollars by pirating.”

Both responses brought clarity to the gray area between ethical judgment and the indifference to illegal downloading. As Ethan and Brian similarly confess to listening to at least 5 hours of music a day, they rationalize pirating music with a lack of money to purchase the plethora of songs consumed. However, while saving themselves money, do they recognize the millions that piracy costs the music industry and/or its artists? Or, are there alternative sources of revenue that musicians strive for?

“If album sales are vital to an artist’s success, how would you justify Chance the Rapper’s situation?

Ethan: “Chance the Rapper didn’t focus on album sales but rather the task of building a culture around his music and connecting to his fanbase. I think the artist gave all of his music away for free to obtain the most visibility, which inspired such a huge and supportive fanbase.”

Brian: “It is a simple dynamic that he implemented; Chance understood the essentiality behind sharing his music rather than selling it that translated his expanding fan base to financial success through concert tickets and merchandise.”

“Do you agree that sharing music and gaining popularity is a key factor to an artist’s success?”

Ethan: “Yeah absolutely.”

Brian: “Definitely, without an audience there isn’t much money to be made.”

“So, given that distributing music is important, and illegally downloading songs is still a form of distribution that increases popularity, is piracy really hurting the artist?

Ethan: “Whether legally or illegally, sharing an artist’s music will always pay off in the long run. Pirating music does take away from money they could have had short-term, but any form of exposure can benefit the musician.”

Brian: “I think it can hurt them, but, more importantly, the music is still listened to and shared. If you’re smart about using popularity to make money you won’t be drastically harmed, but if album sales are your only focus, then you’re going to suffer.”

It is suggested that downloading music can be synonymous to sampling music and even promote the purchase of songs. According to Ethan and Brian, illegally downloading one song has often propelled them to purchase an entire album to support the artist. Both students also presented the fact that album sales are not the only source of revenue. But, while it was agreed that piracy can be simultaneously harmful and advantageous to the artist, both individuals struggled to take a firm stance on either side of the moral argument. The idea that piracy is hindering the industry still circled in the atmosphere; thus, the final question addressed the advocacy for combatting music piracy.

“Given the potential harm it can cause, is music piracy a pressing issue that needs to be stopped? Is there a solution?”

Ethan: “I think illegal downloading is already decreasing in popularity. Right now, I stream about 90% of the music I listen to and don’t have the need to pirate songs online. However, I don’t think there is anything that can be done to completely stop piracy; it is always going to exist.”

Brian: “Organizations will continue to attempt to stop piracy, but as the techniques to stop piracy advance, so will the average user’s ability to get what they want without paying.”

As Ethan and Brian highlight, piracy will always exist. However, Ethan presented a pre-existing solution to mitigate its frequency. Both students admit that once they began using streaming platforms like Spotify and Youtube, the motivation to pirate songs vanished. Although I stressed that artists make less than a penny per stream and only ~1% make minimum wage from streaming, the students agreed that without streaming, they would resort right back to illegally downloading music.

So, is an increase in music streaming a realistic end to piracy?

While not every artist will break such revolutionary music industry standards and become the first to win a Grammy without selling a single album, musicians all over the world are proving that through free distribution and low-profit streaming, music still equates to money without online sales. Although some argue that providing music online for free or on streaming services is deconstructive and non-profitable, the pressing reality of music piracy negates the fantasy that stamping a price on an album will reciprocate expected profits. As the interview confirms, consumers who want music for free will take it for free without apprehension. The advancement of illegal downloading methodologies continually combats the efforts made by organizations mitigating piracy. Thus, the singular yet unrealistic end to piracy would require artists to provide all of their music online without charge. However, instead of considering the intangible, artists should progress and acclimate to the ever-changing domain of music consumption.

As mentioned in both interviews, the availability of streaming equally decreased both the purchase and pirating of music. Streaming applications such as Spotify do require a monthly payment to stream ad-free, but, even for a music pirater like Brian, a monthly ten dollar payment to access a library of over 30 million songs is a reasonable investment. In fact, among its approaching 100 million users, over 30 million pay for a subscription. With Spotify available in 60 countries and over 80% of its users using the app multiple times a week, the idea of downloading music seems obsolete. However, solo artist Derek Webb is against the continual expansion of music streaming and its limited payout claiming he would prefer piracy over the small amount of money profited from streams. In addition to Webb, pop artist Taylor Swift recognized the decrease in profit and pulled her album “1989” from Spotify’s library in attempt to make more money through iTunes.

On one hand, streaming is a solution to piracy, but on the other, it is a financial enemy to musicians. Can a healthy balance between the two exist?

Streaming services should reevaluate their contribution to the artists fueling their existence. To compensate for the monetary loss artists experience from piracy, companies such as iTunes and Spotify could cut the musicians a larger percentage of streaming profits. Rather than fight an unbeatable system, corporations could allow music streaming to continue naturally, thereby weakening the threat of illegal downloading and allow more artists to make a living. As the streaming platform increases in popularity, the music industry should equally adjust to benefit both the musicians and its users.

FBI Anti-Piracy Warning! flickr photo by bizmac shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license