The Ethics of iPod-ing
Your accounting professor just finished a lecture on why it is unethical to
download music to an iPod. According to Professor Goody, it is wrong to download
music from iTunes Music Store because the artists that originally recorded the music do
not get a royalty each time their song is downloaded. You stand up and argue that it is not
unethical because you pay 99 cents to download a song. Your professor answers that it
doesn’t matter because the money does not go to the artist and there is nothing to stop
you from burning copies and “sharing” them with your friends.
Another student, Bethel, then points out that in 2003, the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA), filed lawsuits against 261 peer-to-peer file sharing users
“Things are different now. An agreement was reached with the RIAA to pay a fee for
downloaded music.” Bethel finishes by saying, “It is 100% legal to download music
from the Internet.”
Julian responded that it is still wrong because there are no controls on how you
use the downloaded music. He made the analogy of buying a video from the store,
duplicating it, and then selling the copies on the black market. “It is wrong and so is
selling or even giving away downloaded music,” Julian says.
Felicia then politely raised her hand. Professor Goody asked her to voice her
opinion. Felicia said, “I’m cheap. I have zero money to spend on music. I’m a
struggling college student working at night to pay for my education. I’m not going to pay
anything to download music. I just upload my brother’s music to my computer.”
1
Professor Goody continued to let the students have their say and eventually he
came to believe that the ethics of the issue wasn’t registering. The professor decided to
change his approach. He asked the students whether any of them who had an iPod had
ever received annoying advertisements. Sharonne said she had – “about rock concerts,
CDs, and country music events in her area.” Billy stood up and added he had too and
even “received ads about pop stars clothing sales.” Grace pointed out that she got a virus
after downloading music. After continued discussion, Professor Goody looked at his
watch and saw class time was up for the day. He ended the period by giving the students
a group of questions to be discussed during the next class session.
This case has students consider the ethics of the latest fad. Illegal does not mean that it is
unethical. There is even a question whether iTunes while being legal is being ethical to
the artist whose works they sell.
Ethical Issues
The issues in this case concern who owns the property that iTunes is selling for iPods.
Another concern of iPods is can the owner of the iPod only have songs on the iPod that
the iTunes store sells (iTunes does not sell Beatles songs; do I have the right to have
Beatles songs on my iPod). The concern of who owns the property of songs at the iTunes
store should raise concerns if consumers are paying for stolen goods.
Questions
1. Do you own an iPod? If so, have you ever stopped to think about whether it
is right to download music and use the songs without controls, even though you do
pay 99 cents for each song? Do you think that you should be concerned about the
ethics of this activity? Why or why not? Do you agree with Julian’s analogy?
Support your answer with reference to ethical reasoning.
Does the $.99 paid go to the legitimate own of the song or to someone who stole it. The
label companies claim they own the songs not the artists, and the courts will have to settle
2
that dispute. Students may want to consider the difference in ownership rights if they buy
a CD of songs at Wal Mart versus downloading the song from the Internet. Do the
students see an ethical dilemma here?
What if some of the students hope to be a big songwriter someday or a recording artist?
In the past, George Strait and/or Dusty Hill of ZZ Top were sitting in a college
classrooms hoping to make money off of their talent. If everyone could get the recordings
free, how will these performers make their living? It might like someone was stealing
their songs, likelihood and talent. This is the analogy of Julian. Would anyone write or
perform songs if there was no way to make a living from it? Julian may be arguing from a
utilitarian perspective that everyone is better off if there is music in the world. He may be
using rights that the stakeholders need to respect each other and allow each to make a
living from his own talent. Using the six pillars of character, Julian may be thinking
purchasing a song legal is showing trustworthiness, respect, citizenship, caring and
responsibility.
2. What might be the implications of Felicia’s approach to downloading music
on society in general? Given the facts of this case, consider Felicia’s statement using
the various ethics approaches discussed in Chapter 1 and 2.
Felicia is claiming that the price should be the ability to pay, so that poor people would
get a discount. While the students agree when they consider themselves poor, ask how
they would feel when they are a first year accountant and now the price has jumped
significantly and they have more ability to pay for the same product; would they now pay
3
3. Assume you do not use iPods. Since the activity of downloading music has no
direct effect on you, should you care whether others engage in this activity? Why or
why not?
A person should care when a society condones stealing as ethical. How will a society at
stealing of recordings? Will society then allow stealing tangible possessions – how about
4