I may be the best person to talk about Napster -- or the worst. You can see where this is going already. I don't buy a lot of CDs. In fact, I can't remember the last time I bought one. I don't download music from the Internet. And I don't write or perform music. So I'm either completely neutral or totally out of the loop.

   ADVERTISEMENT
  

Free IT resource

Virtualization Insights from Top Experts - Learn how virtualization gets real!

Sponsored by Dell

Free IT resource

TechNet: More ways to know it, share it, and keep it running.

Sponsored by Microsoft

RELATED LINKS
»  AT&T buys high-speed wireless spectrum for $2.5 billion
»  Update: Sprint chief Forsee resigns
»  IT trainer offers master's degree for hackers
»  Wireless RSS feed 

IDG ENTERPRISE NETWORK
• More Network LAN/WAN News...  (ComputerWorld)
• Wireless EV-DO on board  (ComputerWorld)

TOP NEWS 


IT SOLUTION SEARCH

That's the nice way of putting it. Some readers, responding to recent columns, put it less charitably. Their verdict: I haven't thought about it enough, I'm totally clueless, or I'm an idiot. All of these were comments about my position on Napster, which is puzzling, because I haven't taken one. However, these readers pointed out to me that the situation is perfectly clear:

1. Downloading music is not stealing.

2. Downloading music is definitely stealing.

3. Downloading music is wrong, but not stealing.

4. Downloading music is neither wrong nor stealing.

How could I be so dense? There were several variations on these themes. Some thought you could rip music off a purchased CD to use on other devices. Others thought you could share certain tracks -- but not the whole CD -- with intimate friends (although they didn't say what level of intimacy you need to have achieved first). A few argued that the music industry was so evil that anything you can do to use music for free is totally justified.

And, in typical fashion, many were convinced that their opinions were not only correct, but also self-evident. So I'm glad we've cleared that up.

A few argued the fine points of copyright law, but the connection between law and ethics is, at best, tenuous -- and the subject of a future column - so I usually hesitate to look to the law for the proper ethical answer.

But let's take my CD-buying experience as an entry point. What sometimes happens is that I go to the store, look at a CD that strikes my fancy, find four out of 12 tracks that I find appealing, and put the CD back. Is the recording company better off or worse off that I've not bought the album? I suppose you could say it's worse off, although I could argue that it's neither, because it's position hasn't changed from before I looked at the album. However, it has lost a potential customer. Have I done anything wrong? No. I have no obligation to make the company better off by buying the album.

How about the artist? Again worse off -- and on two counts. Not only has the artist not gotten whatever royalty would come from the sale of the CD, but also I haven't heard the music. And isn't the whole point of performing so that people will hear what you do?

I'm a writer, and I get paid for it. InfoWorld puts my column on its Web site. On one level I'm satisfied; I've got my money. However, if the Web site traffic maven were to come and tell me that my column got only two page hits, I would be devastated. I would be more devastated if InfoWorld didn't come through with the paycheck, but not having anyone read the column hurts a lot too.

Getting back to music, suppose I download the four CD tracks I like from the Internet? Is the record company better or worse off? It's not worse off, because I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway. It may be better off, because I just may buy the next CD the artist puts out if I like this one. Or I may tell someone about it, who might then go out and buy the CD.

How about the artist? The artist is definitely not worse off, because I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway. So he or she isn't losing anything. But, in the sense of having someone appreciate the performance, the artist is definitely better off. There may be some artists who don't care at all about audience appreciation, but if all a performer is interested in is the money, I suspect I wouldn't even be downloading the music.

So putting aside legal considerations, the ethical question at hand is, "Have I harmed anyone?" That is, have I set back any of their important interests without justification? Because I have no obligation to buy a CD, if I don't want one, it's hard to say that I have harmed either the artist or the recording company by not buying the CD. And in downloading the music, I may have advanced at least one of the artist's interests because I am listening to the music.

On the other hand, if I am downloading or sharing the music to avoid otherwise buying the CD, then you could say that I was harming both the artist and the recording company because I was depriving them of income they otherwise would have had -- my money. And that makes all the difference.

The fly in the ointment lies in who determines whether or not I would have bought the CD. You certainly don't know and neither does the recording company. I may think I know, but we have a remarkable ability to deceive ourselves, especially when self interest is involved.

Don't deprive me of your opinion. Check out the InfoWorld online forums, or write to me at ethics_matters@infoworld.com.