The Philosophy of ÓFree MusicÓ on the Internet

By The DevilÕs AdvocateÕs radical free-spirited cousin

We are not saying that musicians shouldnÕt be compensated or attributed for their work.

People can make money without copyrights or patents. Some of the greatest works were created and published, while the creators were able to make a living, before copyrights and patents came about a few hundred years ago, and certain businesses are successful even though everything they create can be freely copied.

Only certain kinds of information are protected by copyright and patent law, yet information not protected can be the foundation for businesses. ÓIdeasÓ and ÓfactsÓ are not protected by copyright and patent law. Yet this doesnÕt stop people from coming up with ideas or compiling facts and making profits from of them.

Copyright advocates argue that Óif creators cannot control copying, they cannot make money, and therefore control of copying is the right thing to do.Ó However, controlling the freedoms of others in the name of economic profit for the copyright holder, is not ethical. Control of copying isnÕt the only way one can make money and recover investments.

These new Napster type services have been extremely popular among the masses, which clearly indicates what the market wants, and this reflects the ethical and philosophical views of the people. If the masses didnÕt want it, then innovations like Napster would fail.

Laws are meant to serve everyone in society, and it is society that ultimately decides what laws are. Even if politicians and groups with misguided self-interest and deep pockets help enact laws that violate the consumers freedom, ultimately the people will vote to uphold that freedom.

In the case of digital downloads, it is clear what the consumers want: free music. Any business model that is created to make profit (such as record company contracts) must take into account the freedoms of everyone involved, which includes not only the artist and the record company, but the also the consumer. When music can be easily copied, the consumer freedoms become more important than the copyright holderÕs rights, and in the end, because protecting the most important freedom is the path of least resistance, the consumers will eventually win.

Except for a few hundred musicians who are on top of the billboard charts, the chances of making a living by record sales in the present system are very low. This system cannot be worse for most musicians.

The free music theory would work because most musicians perform and record with ÓcreativityÓ rather than income as the primary motivation. Thus the source of talented music will never dry up. What we might actually see is more creative forms of music being perpetuated.

In the Vanna White vs. Samsung case [2], Judge Kozinski writes: "All creators draw in part on the work of those who came before, referring to it, building on it, poking fun at it; we call this creativity, not piracy."

The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) [3], states: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

However, the AHRA law is inadequate because the entire ethical basis of copyright law with respect to music has been perverted. Free copying, and other uses, of music is ethical even if it is not legal.

The main motivation for the AHRA law being passed is to a tax blank tapes. The tax then goes back to the music industry in order to compensate the supposed loss of profits that arise as a result of unauthorised home taping. However, the majority of the funds collected goes not to the creators of the music, but to the record companies.

Thus it makes sense to follow the "free music" philosophy and encourage other imbursement to the artist, rather than tax blank tapes and let the government divide tax money among record companies, who then reimburse a small percentage, if any, to the artist.

Freeing music is ethically the right thing to do, because:

First, limiting your creativity to specific audiences for monetary reasons is avoiding your responsibility to society. You drew from past influences in society, yet want to keep the rights to these influences for yourself. Today, when people create, they're creating by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Second, it's fair that people pay for music only if they like it, after listening to it first. The present system does not allow for this.

Third, in order to prevent "illegal" copies from being made, a tremendous burden (restricting legitimate expression) must be placed on all individuals to circumvent what is human nature. This is an impossible task. This is why the AHRA was passed, because it was impossible to restrict copying at home. The future is here, and the internet has now turned your "home" into "the entire world."

Fourth, current copyright law prevents the use of your own music or ideas to enhance other people's expressions, and this abridges the free exchange of ideas and information. Finally, the current practices of the recording industry, which exploit both artist and consumer in the interests of profit, are unethical and not for the good of the society. Intellectual property and other such rights are supposed to benefit "society" rather than the "copyright holder." The U.S. Constitution states that the purpose of a copyright is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

Some of the ideas for this article came from the website for Free Music Philosophy, which we do not necessarily support. The website is:http://www.ram. org/ramblings/philosophy/ fmp/copying_primer.html