Let’s get one thing straight from the start. I download music. Vocally, indiscriminately, unapologetically. I’m downloading Plumtree’s Greatest Hits right now. I think it’s fantastic that a person can fire up a browser, do a quick Google search, and come back with links to five newly-released albums he could not have listened to earlier that morning. The sheer speed and simplicity of music’s deliverability in 2010 through digital systems is nothing short of remarkable.

    And yet, counter to this, every day we, the students of Music Industry Arts, hear horror stories of how downloading is cheating artists. The greedy, self-entitled public is destroying creativity, ruining once-promising careers, and “killing the business” with their binary thievery. Now more than ever, people want their musical cravings satisfied, and somehow, this has crippled the music industry to the point of collapse.

    Does that seem counterintuitive to anyone else?

    Instead of embracing these newfound delivery methods with creative business practices, record labels and industry careerists have taken to government and the courts, lobbying for legislation to protect their inflated profits and punish those who disobey.

    But why is downloading music “illegally” so vilified? On some level at least, average people don’t really see it as a huge breach of the law, or I would be swiftly arrested upon this article’s publication. 

    It seems the arguments against downloading music through torrents and P2P software can be distilled down into three points: (1) Downloading music is theft, plain and simple; (2) Downloading threatens the livelihood of those in the industry; and (3) Downloading betrays the songwriters and artists who work to provide individuals with the music they enjoy.

    Each of these points are nonsense, and can be easily countered (hopefully leaving you to download music, guilt-free. Hurray!).

    The most common response against downloading accuses an individual collecting kilobytes through the internet as “stealing” the song - from the artist, the label, and others. Hey, you wouldn’t steal a loaf of bread, would you? Same thing.

    Except, it isn’t the same as stealing a loaf of bread, or any other physical product, for that matter. When music began to be recorded, which is to say, encoded, digitally, its underlying structure changed. No longer is it a physical product that must be printed, pressed, labeled, shrink-wrapped, delivered, stocked, and sold. Digital recordings are liquid, void of erroneous and extraneous costs. A song downloaded from Limewire is not stolen, but copied - perfectly. To expect a patron to pay money, even the “low” price of $9.99, when the physical cost of producing the material is approaching zero, is wishful thinking. To revisit the food analogy, downloading music is not akin to stealing bread, but buying a breadmaker and copying the “loaf” design at the supermarket. Someone who makes his own bread this way cannot be said to have illegally stolen revenue from the grocer by making his own copy.

    As for threatening the livelihood of others in the business, this is a problem that stems to the bloated, wasteful infrastructure that is the music industry. Certainly, artists, producers, engineers, and managers have their place when in developing and maintaining the creation of music and talent. However, those immaterial administrative positions that once lined the halls of record labels and entertainment firms, do not. At the very least, they are not essential to the survival of the core of the industry, as they once were. It is unfortunate for those individuals if these positions are cut, but such jobs have become unnecessary in a landscape that enables artists to have direct interaction with their fanbase.

    Finally, perhaps most importantly, is the argument that downloading songs without payment betrays the artists, hurting them financially and emotionally.

    It’s true that musicians have lost money due to downloading. That cannot be denied. But the fans have been betrayed as well, forced to pay inflated prices for new material, or re-purchase a collection of works on a new medium every few years.

    Additionally, countless lawsuits have been issued by artists against their labels accusing them of withholding payment.

    No one can claim the higher ground.

    The solution is much more complex, and is one that we are all currently struggling to find. Some facts, however, are obvious. Fans will download songs they like for free when they can, because of the emotional connection that accompanies the song when the Play button is pushed. The bond between Artist and Listener is the foundation of the music industry, and fans are more than willing to subsidize their favourite acts to ensure they keep making the music they love.

    What they will not tolerate, however, is being victimized by outside parties who take the overwhelming majority of income.

    Rather than abhor digital downloading, musicians should be embracing it for the fantastic, limitless distribution system it is.

    And if you’re really worried that downloading the newest album by your favourite act is hurting their revenue, go see them live and finance the band directly through other purchases - or even just give the guitarist a $20 bill.

    I support music I enjoy and the musicians who create it. I will not, however, subsidize the decaying business practices of 1.0-level minds.