CREDIT: BLOG.CASE.EDU

Remember the days when you would run home from ye olde CD shoppe? Like a sugar-doped kid on Christmas morning, you would frantically unwrap the plastic, fire it into your CD player and… listen. Just listen. On repeat. Albums back then deserved our undivided attention — and believe it or not, they still do. The Internet's capacity to instantly share the world's cache of music has changed more than the industry's distribution network. It has changed both the social value of music, and the habits by which we consume it.

Christopher Stewart, a musician and author hailing out of Montreal, has published Takers Economy: An Inquiry into Illegal File-Sharing, which takes issue with the implications file-sharing has on the role of art in our society and, by extension, on the well-being of our collective consciousness. Takers Economy has successfully unveiled the negative effects of Internet piracy from an angle that focuses on a cultural and spiritual perspective, rather than the purely economic.

You may be thinking, "Whaaat? How can downloading music illegally possibly affect our spiritual consciousness? It's only art. That's crazy!" To which I would reply, "Perhaps." Although, if you consider that, according to Stewart, the primary function of art is to "provide a mirror for the eternal self," it begins to make sense.

Think about it! Art is not merely art. Rather, it is necessary for society. Art allows us to reflect on our experiences and our values. It provides a medium through which we can be critical of established truth and be inspired to foray into new moral territory. It is a vehicle that allows the celebration of individual talent, while simultaneously bringing together communities of likeminded people by revealing fundamental qualities of what it means to be human. This kind of appreciation is often overlooked by society at large, but the inherent value of art is usually perceived intuitively by the average Joe. According to Stewart, the fact that "…people justify sharing a work of art unlawfully is a telling illustration of the worth of those creations."

Now you may be thinking, "Okay... but wouldn't being able to share these works of art to a global audience only enhance the desired outcome?" To which I would reply, "Absolutely." Despite the flack open-source file sharing gets on the economic front, one cannot deny that in terms of the free-flow of information and what it means for democratic values, it has been a blessing.

However, the problems arise when the artistic works are being shared without the permission of and without compensation for the creator. Copyright law exists for the sole reason of protecting the intellectual property of creators to ensure there is incentive for their innovation. Illegal file-sharing displaces that incentive. The result is not only devastating to the artist, whose hard-wrought creativity goes without reward, but it is also, more poignantly, devastating to art in general. Innovative pieces of music, for example, are often compromised by the allure of making them more accessible to a mass audience. Moreover, the sheer volume of music made available by open-source file sharing has placed added pressure on the artist to conform to familiar musical formulas in order to gain the attention of an audience. I think we can all agree that the listening habits of this generation have been severely curtailed by our culture of convenience — that is to say, we approach art with a 'fast-food' type of attitude: we seek instant gratification to our musical hunger rather than being willing to critically engage with art to find a deeper, more nutritional value. Put simply, people want entertainment, not art.

Okay. Now you're thinking "Whoa, hold your horses, mister. You're starting to sound pretentious." To which I would reply, "I know, and I'm sorry! But keep reading anyway!"

Stewart likens the effect illegal file sharing has on the value of art to a similar scenario:

"When industries exploit natural resources without caring for the environment, they plunder without concern for the ecology or the people who inhabit the land ... They deplete entire regions in the name of wealth creation."

(Hmm. I'm reminded of my last downloading binge. Suddenly, the 28 days, eight hours, and 14 minutes worth of music in my iTunes library doesn't seem so impressive. I should be ashamed.) Stewart continues, "Ultimately, this impoverishes the whole environment because less life and less diversity can thrive in the surroundings. And eventually, all are diminished from that deprivation, including the offenders themselves."

And so it comes full circle. Just as we must strive for balance in our relationship with nature, we must also strive for balance and to improve the environment for artists in order to be able to enjoy their most delicious fruits. Life imitates art. Art imitates life. So the next time you're cycling through your iTunes library, scrolling through thousands of illegally acquired songs and listening to mere fragments of a composition, take a moment. Just listen. On repeat. And then ask yourself — is this the sound of art? Or am I merely being entertained?

Takers Economy is available for free via Stewart's blog: poligraf.tumblr.com/writings/takerseconomy.