In Defence Of Illegal Music Downloads

Even as I typed the title of this article just then, I flinched a little bit in my chair, half expecting a SWAT team to rappel down through the window and take me out. "Tango down" they'd say, in a ridiculously deep American accent, high-fiving each other as the contents of my head slowly stained the carpet. I didn't flinch because I've necessarily got anything to offer that isn`t regulation-grade journalistic drivel, however, but rather because the topic of file sharing is one so vehemently opposed in the press that it's hard to even approach the subject without that little bit of hesitation.

But, dear reader, please refrain from spitting at your screen in disgust: a dry mouth isn't healthy and God knows that saliva isn't good for electronics. I'm not looking to offer a blanket defence for all illegal downloads: it's hard to deny that there are some situations where it can't be good for the artists involved. Equally, I won't be slipping on my dog collar and getting moral at any point in this article: stealing is stealing after all, so those concerned about that little 'Hell' thing should probably consult their priest rather than a silly journalist sitting at his computer.

Illegal downloads are not something that are likely to go away anytime soon. Despite the best efforts of music industry executives, certain people will always be looking for new ways to share and find music for free, and that's something that bodies such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have already come to terms with. Instead of trying to fight against the very presence of file sharing, then, I'd like to embrace the concept in all its illegal glory and try to find some of the positives from the existence of torrents and peer to peer downloads.

The first stumbling block that any potential downloader will arrive at is the fact that music piracy takes profits away from the musicians who have struggled to create their art. It's stealing: horrible, horrible stealing. You might as well go punch an old lady in the street and steal her mobility scooter; it'd be just as bad. Yet still, part of me can't help but wonder if the latest pop act actually deserves a Beverly Hills mansion for mumbling into an auto-tune machine and hooking up with DJ flavourofthemonth? The British public seems keen to criticise footballers and BBC executives for their colossal pay packets, but still remain happy for musicians to retain their hefty wealth without question.

Perhaps musicians deserve more than your average worker: more often than not they've proved their talent and should probably receive some compensation for the lack of private life that seems to come hand-in-hand with the job. However, that isn't to say that musicians should be unquestionably rich: I'd never wish anything other than a comfortable existence on people producing the music that makes my day, but perhaps illegal downloading making musicians' wages that little bit less colossal might not be the worst thing in the world.

ImageBut please don't get me wrong here: I don't mean to generalise. I've met many bands who rely on album and merchandise sales for their next tour, if not their next meal. I would never download an album from a band who are still touring small venues on a minor label, working their socks off to get their music across to one small audience at a time. It's a matter of personal judgement of course, but I would encourage all music fans to support emerging acts and bands who are yet to cement their status as chart-toppers by purchasing the albums, going to the shows and buying the T-shirts. If there's one argument that I don't want to be misconstrued, it's this: support the acts that need your support.

There is a valid argument that music piracy is actually benefitting the quality of modern music itself. Picture the scene: there's a young, trendy musician looking to produce his first album. For the sake of this article let's call him 'Dustin Beaver'. He's keen to make a name for himself, however there's one problem - he can't sing. Modern technology has a way around this, so Beaver records his debut album using every auto-tune trick in the book. His album will sell millions, for sure.

However, throw file sharing into the equation and it's apparent that album sales won't be enough for Beaver's finances. He'll have to hit the road and tour his songs, proving to audiences that his success is 90% studio trickery. Sure, he can throw a few (costly) distractions into the mix: big dance routines, pyrotechnics or, I don't know, making the arena smell like a candy shop, but by the end of the tour fans will come to realise that he's not the vocal performer that the record showed him to be.

Music piracy is forcing artists to rely on touring and other (formerly) secondary means of income as a way of recouping lost album sales, and this can only be good for music fans. Firstly, the Dustin Beavers of this world are being forced to rip off their auto-tune facade and (even if some of the studio trickery is transferable to a live rig) the fakes are slowly being ousted for their poor live displays.

More to the point, if artists are relying more on touring as a source of income then that means fans are being offered more live music: illegal downloads mean that more music is being heard the way that it was intended - blasted out of giant speakers at stupidly loud volume. Recent economic turns might mean that fans have less spare cash for tickets, yet artists are still touring more extensively looking to boost the deficit in their pay packets caused by illegal downloads. The average gig-goer is now a necessity to record executives, and thanks to illegal downloads the general public now have that little bit more of a presence in the minds of the music industry itself.

Not only is the music of current artists benefiting by slowly filtering out the 'musicians' who can't perform live, but illegal downloads will bring about a positive change to young musicians who are still developing their tastes. Having access to a near-infinite library of music at the click of a mouse means that young artists are developing with a much wider musical scope than previous generations. Youngsters can access new songs from a variety of cultures without having to trawl through a record shop in Brick Lane or the backstreets of Brixton, and this diversification will no doubt lead to a richer pallet of musical output when these young, internet-savvy musicians do eventually emerge with material.

Another point can be made by looking across to our (occasionally pretentious) neighbours in the art world. Right now I've just taken a sheet of paper from my printer and drawn a massive willy across the page in marker pen. Seriously, there are hairs, a big vein and everything. Put this up for auction and it would (unfortunately) be worthless, while an original Picasso would no doubt fetch a six-figure sum at least.

Transfer the world of art into a modern day music market, however, and both items would be worth the same iTunes checkout-ready 99p. It's true that music deals with digital (and physical) copies rather than originals, but it's a strange system where Rebecca Black's 'Friday' is appraised at the same commercial worth as modern classics like Bjork's 'Joga' or Foals' 'Spanish Sahara'. It's hard to imagine a system where music is priced by its cultural 'worth', so perhaps the emergence of file sharing is a breath of fresh air to the world of music, giving tracks no inherent cash value at all.

If music were offered for free as standard (a practise which is becoming steadily more regular in recent years), then musicians would have more liberty to focus on the cultural value of their product rather than the cash value. Taking the pressure of sales out of the equation would stop artists from diluting their music to appeal to the largest demographic, writing songs which end up bland and bafflingly unemotional just so they can appeal to the widest audience possible (a recent Lady Gaga ode to hair springs to mind for those seeking an example).

The argument that music should have no inherent commercial value is one often echoed, and Fleet Foxes singer Robin Pecknold put it best when he recently said: "Cash value of all 'art' is subjective... A Pollock is worth millions for cultural reasons, not for cost of paint. That the prices of music 'products' have dropped post-filesharing proves the lack of objective cash value."

It's easy to see the topic of file sharing as one that pits the music industry against the general public. However, just as a whopping 5% of downloaders chose to do it legally, certain musicians have also bucked the trend among their peers and defended file sharing. The likes of Trent Reznor, Duffy, Fleet Foxes, Slipknot, Radiohead's Ed O'Brien and Pink Floyd's Nick Mason have all defended music piracy against the will of their industry executives. One of the less-likely defenders came from Columbian pop goliath (and contender for Miss Universe) Shakira, who said in 2009: "It`s the democratisation of music in a way. And music is a gift. That`s what it should be, a gift."

Now this is nowhere near the end of the argument defending illegal downloads. There are certain statistics that are sure to bore to less attentive reader, but definitely worth considering: the fact that illegal downloaders spend more on music than regular consumers, for example, or the fact that the majority of illegal downloads are one or two tracks (any different from taping Dr Fox's 'Top 40', quickly pausing so that the adverts aren't on the cassette?). However, I've rambled for a while now and I've definitely got better things to be getting on with (starting a few torrents, perhaps?).

Agree or disagree? Are you a pirate-clad downloader looking to plunder a musical booty or a whiter-than-white music fan who wouldn't dare listen to a single second for free? Opinions about the topic would be most appreciated, so feel free to comment on the article itself or send opinions to jpgallagher88@outlook.com

I'll leave you with the words of Nine Inch Nails frontman and 2011 Oscar winner Trent Reznor, who said (sensationally) in 2007: "Steal it. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal. Steal some more and give it to your friends."