Unethical ?

[ted]

Here's a good one for you people to think about. Last week I was given a surprise birthday dinner at a restaurant with several old and dear friends. One of them, a retired, very successful businessman, asked me what I was doing with my music, had I published any recordings or scores, had people performed my stuff - that sort of thing. I replied that I make hundreds of private recordings, which I give away, scan in dozens of scores and email them to people all over the place, some of which were possibly being played as we spoke.

"You do realise," he said earnestly, looking me in the eye, "that what you are doing is ethically quite wrong. You are flouting the rules of commerce, the way the world must operate, and by giving things away you are fully as culpable as those who copy, pirate and otherwise wrongly accrue benefit for themselves. That you do it altruistically, the other way around, is of no consequence, the principle is the same."

"But," I protested, warming to the subject after a couple of drinks, "I'm no longer interested in money or working for it, least of all through the one vital interest whose financial independence I have spent decades toiling to preserve. As long as I have enough to eat, a roof over my head and enough to cover something really bad happening, that will suit me just fine. I have earned the right to do precisely as I please with my music."

The discussion went on at some length, and afterwards I realised that he was not simply winding me up but really believed what he said. 

So, am I unethical or am I not ? 

[thalbergmad]

I don't think you are Ted. You think music is more important than money and he possibly thinks money is more important than music.

I too have scanned hundreds of scores that i freely distribute without charge and although it does make my blood boil when i see some of my work for sale on some dodgy sites and on e bay, i refuse to change my stance.

What "rules of commerce" you are supposedly flouting, is beyond my comprehension.

Thal

[quantum]

Perhaps the false notion that all civilized societies on this earth operate on a system of market exchange and all other people should strive to reach this ideal. 

Ted, I do not think you are unethical.  Rather you are a very generous person willing to share your love and passion for music.  I think the rewards of having someone smile after listening to good music far outweighs any monetary sum.


It's been a sort of fantasy of mine to write a pop song that a big artist such as Celine Dion or the like would be willing to sing.  But instead of imposing copyright on it, I would release it on something similar to the GNU license.  Any one may sell it it for whatever they wish, but it must always remain freely copyable and modifiable.  It would be illegal to impose copy restrictions on it.  Sort of sticking it to the man of the music industry.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

How your stance is unethical is quite beyond me. Some things are worth more than money; you regard music as one of them, and I'm fully in agreement. Perhaps it is an unwritten rule of commerce "thou shalt not give away for free what thou canst charge money for"? But it is nice if someone thinks art is above commerce, which surely it is. I imagine he would not have liked Liszt's policy of free lessons for talented students 

[Derek]

I don't see how that's unethical either. As I see it, if someone creates or innovates something which is valuable to other people, it is their OPTION whether they would like to make a living off of it or whether they would like to give of it freely.  If someone gives of something freely which is of higher quality than many things which are sold, the only bad that can come of that I suppose is some sort of internal jealousy on the part of the person selling the inferior thing, knowing that the person giving freely could do better. But that's their problem, not yours. So I have no idea what that person was talking about.

[rc]

I dunno about unethical, but it's occurred to me that people don't properly value things unless it's reflected in the pricetag.

I have a friend who's a chef and he wanted to travel the world to learn different dishes then come home to open a restaurant that would offer what no other restaurant offered.  First off I thought it was a bad idea because most people would be intimidated by a menu full of unfamiliar dishes (not a big city, pretty conservative tastes, oh and the competition for restaurants is ridiculous). 

Then I thought about it some more and if he were to offer unique dishes, superior cooking...  Then he might be better off to charge a lot for it, even if it's not much more expensive to prepare.  Because it would be more likely to attract a 'ritzy' eating crowd who wouldn't be intimidated but proud to try something that's hard to pronounce and from my experience if you undervalue your services so will others (whether it's true or not).  Anytime I've underpriced my services, the customers think "...this guy must be a rookie".  When I give a higher price they seem more "we've got our moneys worth" (true ).

This kind of thinking doesn't sound like the case for your music, since you have no commercial intentions.  Though I'm curious - why don't you want to make money from your interest?

[mike_lang]

by giving things away you are fully as culpable as those who copy, pirate and otherwise wrongly accrue benefit for themselves.

I find your friend's comparison far-fetched, to be generous.  The pirate's guilt lies in his wrongful assumption of ownership of the intellectual property, at which point he proceeds to profit from what is not his to profit from.  You, on the other hand, have every right to the work you have created.  (...Unless your friend argues that, for one reason or another, once the work has been created in tangible reality, it is no longer yours, then perhaps he would have a point, as you would be robbing the possessor of the rights.  Nevertheless, what you have created is yours unless you are working commercially in certain situations, and I believe you are infringing on no one by being so charitable.)

Best,
Michael

[gerry]

Your "old and dear friend" sounds like an unimaginative boor who, at such an occassion (your birthday,) should have commended you for your efforts rather than challenge you. No wonder so many "successful businessmen" are getting nailed for manipulative accounting practices and backdating options... Did you ask him if he ever donated his talents to a nonprofit or community volunteer help project?? What would he think of that? Sounds like with his philosophy, nobody should volunteer for anything...

[ted]

Thanks for your answers. I would have been a little surprised had anybody agreed with him but it's nice to know a few people have a bit of idealism.

Though I'm curious - why don't you want to make money from your interest?

I don't know, rc, I struggle for an answer that makes sense. I suppose it is just that I have always worked so hard to support my music from other means, in order to preserve complete artistic independence, that I have never seriously considered any other way. Perhaps I am unconsciously a wee bit afraid that I might start to alter my music to suit the income.  If some financial reward came my way through my music as a by-product I wouldn't turn it down but I'd probably just give it to my wife or my son; they're a lot fonder of money than I am, not that they've ever had to go without much.

[ramseytheii]

YOu aren't unethical, but my reasons are unidealistic.  Your recordings and music are your creation, your property, and you are free to do with them what you please.  Your businessman friend is coming from the angle of competition, but the analogy doesn't apply.  If people listen to your free music, that doesn't mean they are going to stop listening to music that they have to purchase, either by buying a ticket, a recording, or an iTune.  In other words there is no competition, and you are not undercutting anybody.

Walter Ramsey

[richard black]

You are flouting the rules of commerce, the way the world must operate,

I think that's the key line in the chap's argument. If you accept the premise that the world must indeed operate by the rules of commerce, someone who gives stuff away that conventionally would cost money is effectively undermining the whole edifice. You give music to people, they will start to demand it free from other performers and composers. I can sort of see the point he's trying to make, though in your particular case it's considerably weakened by the fact that you are not operating on remotely the same scale as, for instance, EMI with the Beatles catalogue.

And of course not by any means everyone does agree that that's how the world must operate.

[gerry]

Do Doctors Without Borders undermine the medical profession and this edifice of commerce? What about Habitat for Humanity and all the professional designers and workmen involved in that? There are tens of thousands of similar volunteer efforts throughout the professions - people who give of their talents for altruistic reasons. Did Mother Theresa have a business manager? For every one of you there are probably thousands who follow the dictates of commerce by makeing a living or at least charging for their services. In essence, you are offering a smiliar volunteer effort to improve humanity by making your talent available to those who might not be exposed to the beauty of music otherwise. I think your businessman friend's premise was purely argumentative for its own sake (devil's advocate if you will) and would dismiss it as such. As valid as you might think his argument is, considering the above, think of how much poorer the world and your immeidate community would be if everyone followed his way of thinking. I think your in good company doing what you do. Kudos.

[ada]

"You do realise," he said earnestly, looking me in the eye, "that what you are doing is ethically quite wrong. You are flouting the rules of commerce, the way the world must operate, and by giving things away you are fully as culpable as those who copy, pirate and otherwise wrongly accrue benefit for themselves. That you do it altruistically, the other way around, is of no consequence, the principle is the same."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have read this, and gone away and thought about it, and kept thinking about it, and all the time it bugged me.

Let's say we go back to the principles of Marx. Who makes the so-called "rules of commerce"? Those who own the means of production, because they hold the power, so they make the rules.

As artists, we produce the commodity, or "content", if you like. So we are the means of production.

But in a capitalist system we don't own the content we produce; it's no longer ours to sell. Instead we sell ourselves (our time and our labour) to record companies, touring companies; those who hire us to perform; those who hold copyright of our work. Our creativity becomes  a commodity, like a fridge or gold bullion that you can buy or sell in the marketplace.

The corporations own our labour, and that's how we make a living in a capitalist society, even artists.

People who pirate or illegally copy are ultimately commiting an offence against the owners of the means of production (the people who own us), not those who create the content.

By cutting out the middle man and providing our labour for free, or for love, or whatever, we transcend these "laws of commerce",  because we are outside and above them as the original owers of the fruits of our labour.

This is why for example, people who publish books online (like Stephen King) are a threat to the publishing houses. Or artists who post on YouTube are a threat to the record companies.

Anyhow, who says the "laws of commerce" are the rules by which the world must operate? There is nothing set in stone about them.  It's just the way the dominant capitalist ideology would have it. There are lots of views about the rules by which the world should operate, and the "laws of commerce" are just one view among many, albeit the dominant one at this particular point in history.

What I am trying to say is that artists are exempt from the "laws of commerce" because we are not by nature commercial beasts. We are creators. We are not the owners of something created by someone else, we do our own creating.