Critique on Piracy

In the article ‘In Defense of Piracy (Well, Some Piracy)’, Ruben advocated that piracy should be allowed selectively for popular singles because of the following reasons. Firstly, Ruben believes that music marketing hype is causing us to buy records we would not contemplate buying otherwise. With music marketing rising to unparalleled levels and many of which completely irrelevant to shows, piracy would be an ethical and efficient way of holding out against such marketing. Secondly, the generally poor quality of music causes us to waste money buying one album of lousy music just for one good song. Moreover, we will get tired of it eventually. Ultimately, it is hypocritical of any argument against such piracy since MP3 music is being sold legally online too. This critique aims to analyse the logic and validity of this argument.

Ruben rightly points out that music advertising is not related to the intellectual property rights argument. He uses relevant analogy and appeals to authority in the example of “Kashmir” in Godzilla to illustrate tie-ins that are irrelevant to shows. By claiming that supporting piracy is an efficient way of holding out against such marketing, Ruben assumes that buying of records would constitute supporting such advertising. This is untrue and therefore the claim is invalid. Ruben concedes that he buys CDs because he likes music on radio, parties and online which constitute forms of music marketing. This shows marketing hype is causing him to buy CDs too. He is not holding out against such hype by supporting piracy. This is hypocritical. By claiming that he already owes more than 600 CDs and correctly stating that it is the right thing to do, he is subconsciously suggesting that piracy is wrong. This is in contrary to his main claim.

Ruben also shows his awareness that piracy violates the copyright law. However, he quickly brushes aside such violations, refuting that it is ethical to keep a single song if it is the only option to buying a CD with that song being the only good song. He makes an unwarranted assumption that records contain only one good song. Indeed, Peter Davias (2004) observed that greatest hits compilations are available for sale and should give consumers more for their money. Ruben claims that the recording industry has made a “decent chunk of money”. However this definition of “decent chunk of money” is vague. RIAA (2003), however, revealed that most sales are never profitable. While Ruben is aware that CD singles are available, he believes they will most likely be in import form which still is expensive. He fails to recognize that there are also used CDs for sale which are priced at cheaper rates (The CD Exchange, 2004).

He acknowledges that anti-piracy advocates will argue that one can always vote and refuse to buy records. His refutation that voting is serious and a responsibility while buying CDs is about entertainment and therefore an invalid equation of both sounds logical. However, his analogy of political leaders and music industry is not entirely appropriate when critically examined. Anti-piracy advocates refer to voting as exercising consumer rights and not