Ethical to download free music?

[The Individual]

If an artiste puts up his song online for free, would it be ethical by the Objectivist's standard if I downloaded it since I accepted a value without giving anything of value in return?

Edited September 22, 2009 by The Individual

[Mimpy]

If an artist holds the rights to a song and he wishes to distribute it freely, that is his prerogative. There is nothing wrong with downloading his music then. This would only be wrong if the artist does not hold the rights to the song, in which case you would be stealing.

Don't think of it in terms of a value exchange. Think of it in terms of the person who owns the the rights to the product being able to set the terms of distribution of his product. As long as you are obeying those terms, your action is completely moral.

[DavidOdden]

If an artiste puts up his song online for free, would it be ethical by the Objectivist's standard if I downloaded it since I accepted a value without giving anything of value in return?

Your attention to and interest in his song may not be of particular value to you, but that is the nature of a profitable trade. Each party exchanges something that is of lesser value -- to them -- in order to gain something that is of greater value -- to them.

[Jake_Ellison]

If an artiste puts up his song online for free, would it be ethical by the Objectivist's standard if I downloaded it since I accepted a value without giving anything of value in return?

While what Mimpy is saying is right (not universally, but in the case of someone giving away their songs it probably is, and that's what he was saying it about, so he's right), you should definitely look at it as value-exchange as well, beyond just making sure you don't violate someone's rights. We have a thread where we discussed the trader principle very recently (about selling illegal drugs, which would generally be immoral), but you'd be better off just reading about it in the Lexicon. (it was of course a theme of Atlas Shrugged, so if you've read that, you probably already know)

In the case of an artist offering you his music, you give your attention in return, and if you end up liking it you'll give them free publicity, by telling your friends about the music. That's how most artists start their careers these days, so there definitely is a value exchange, just because you don't pay them money.

However, in the off chance that an artist chooses to do this solely to make a political or philosophical statement, you may decide that the moral thing to do would be to avoid that artist and his free music entirely, and deal only with people who also prefer dealing in terms of value-exchange, rather than handouts.

I don't know of any artists who would do this, but then again, I would probably ignore someone who's doing it very quickly, I would not remember their name.

[CWEarl]

If an artiste puts up his song online for free, would it be ethical by the Objectivist's standard if I downloaded it since I accepted a value without giving anything of value in return?

As far as I know, there is nothing unethical about giving something to someone else by any Objectivist standard as the exchange is voluntary. In this case the value to the artist is presumably having people listen to the music.

[Jake_Ellison]

As far as I know, there is nothing unethical about giving something to someone else by any Objectivist standard as the exchange is voluntary.

Sure there is a standard, beyond voluntary exchange. For instance, it would most definitely be unethical for me to give you my car.

There most certainly is an Objectivist standard that tells you what you should give, and to whom: it's self interest. It's just that most music that is "given away" happens to meet that standard.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Greebo]

Sure there is a standard, beyond voluntary exchange. For instance, it would most definitely be unethical for me to give you my car.

Why?

[ToyoHabu]

The question being asked, I think, is it ethical to ever acceptable to receive something for nothing. The answer to this is no, we must always exchange value for equal value. This does not mean every transaction involves the exchange of currency or objects directly. In the case of musician giving away his music on a website there may be a host of values obtained by that musician, the one already espoused and most likely to be is publicity.

[Eiuol]

Sure there is a standard, beyond voluntary exchange. For instance, it would most definitely be unethical for me to give you my car.

I imagine you mean in the sense he is a complete stranger and has extremely little value to you, so it would be a sacrifice to just *give* your car to him?

[Jake_Ellison]

I imagine you mean in the sense he is a complete stranger and has extremely little value to you, so it would be a sacrifice to just *give* your car to him?

Yes, it would be a sacrifice, because I need the car. My point is that in Objectivism the moral standard is self interest, not just the non-violation of rights. While respecting others' rights is part of the moral code of someone living in a civilized society, that is not enough. In Atlas Shrugged for instance, there was a special emphasis placed on the heroes always acting selfishly, and never accepting handouts, even being offended by the thought of them.

[CWEarl]

Sure there is a standard, beyond voluntary exchange. For instance, it would most definitely be unethical for me to give you my car.

So gifts are unethical in general? I doubt that is your claim...

There most certainly is an Objectivist standard that tells you what you should give, and to whom: it's self interest. It's just that most music that is "given away" happens to meet that standard.

I did not mean to state otherwise. A rational person only gives something away out of self-interest. I didn't think it would be necessary to state such within this forum. I will be more careful.

[Jas0n]

If an artiste puts up his song online for free, would it be ethical by the Objectivist's standard if I downloaded it since I accepted a value without giving anything of value in return?

I would say that the thing to do here is consider this proposition by way of some hypothetical example, and ask yourself why an artist would put his song online for free in the first place. Would he have done it as a matter of pure, unadulterated self-immolating altruism? I'm not inclined to say that such a thing would be impossible, but there are two problems here.

First, he (the artist) obviously does have something to gain by making his work available for free download. Your interest is of value to him, and this particular gambit represents a marketing maneuver wherein he attracts you with free content, in the hope that you will appreciate his work enough to buy an album, pay for a concert ticket, tell a friend... the gambit may not pay off every time, but the artist stands to find the success he seeks by accepting that one out of every several downloads generates a new loyal fan.

Second, beyond our suppositions and beyond any communication you might have with the artist (say, an explanatory paragraph on his website), his motive will be a mystery to you. Trying to psychoanalyze the artist without any significant reference - just based on this free download - is a horrible mistake. Now... since we're dealing with hypotheticals, we could suppose an artist who puts his work online for free, and disclaims the download by insisting that you not appreciate his art, not purchase his albums, not support him by buying merchandise or tickets to his show, not share your knowledge of him with others. And I wouldn't blame you if you decided not to download his music after all. But by in large, the evidence (and the business sense) suggests that it's a marketing ploy, not some altruist pitch toward economic and artistic suicide.

[RationalBiker]

First, he (the artist) obviously does have something to gain by making his work available for free download. Your interest is of value to him, and this particular gambit represents a marketing maneuver wherein he attracts you with free content, in the hope that you will appreciate his work enough to buy an album, pay for a concert ticket, tell a friend... the gambit may not pay off every time, but the artist stands to find the success he seeks by accepting that one out of every several downloads generates a new loyal fan.

This is particularly true now that there is a large quantity of new music on the market with the advent of tools that make it easier for independent artists to get their music out there.