As new methods of carrying MP3s emerge, we will forget how we abandoned the CD. The emerging preference for downloading has been blamed on…well… everything. The high cost of CDs tops the list, but the cause may be the pricing. CDs list for $11.98 or $18.98 or $9.98, or whatever dollar amount the labels decide the marketplace will support. The major label, Universal, lowers its list prices and other labels fail to follow its example, creating more variation. But, the average consumer does not care which specific label produces their music: the range of prices appears arbitrary.

Also, consumers know the cost of a blank CD-R. You can purchase a 100 pack for less than $20 with rebates at the local office supply store. A $15 music CD is unacceptable. The need to divide profits among the artist, label, wholesaler and retailer is forgotten because an observant consumer knows that production costs need not exist.

The convergence of mass communication suggests that all information can be transferred via bits (and therefore, via the computer—wirelessly if that’s the most convenient.) There’s no reason to pay for the production of a CD when you can burn one yourself. In fact, who needs a CD anyway? It’s just one more object to place on an already cluttered shelf. The medium is not the message: the medium is irrelevant. It’s all about the music and the music can come to you instantaneously.

The path to music downloading and MP3 players has been laden with objections. One argument against downloading individual songs reminds that musicians create an entire album for the listener to “experience.” (Recent CDs by Green Day and Elvis Costello attest to this.) But “most of it’s filler,” consumers cry. Forget that some of that filler are tunes that need to be heard multiple times to fully appreciate. People want value for their money. $1.80 for a song is too much if the song lacks a desired hook.

Interest in the single (45’s, cassette singles, CD singles, etc.) is cyclical, with only a few selected genres finding success as singles in the 1990’s. But, downloading makes everything into a single and allows the buyer to create his own mix. No longer do the labels decide what makes a hit song (although videos help.) Checking the most popular downloads on iTunes presents an eclectic mix of recent hits and popular back catalog. Power flows back to the consumer. The single returns.

People over a certain age may love to shop in the music store, browsing the racks and handling the CDs. But, technology creates a perceived need for more information. Consumers want to listen to CDs before they buy. Independent stores struggle with making CDs available for listening while not losing potential profit by opening the packaging. Larger chains spend thousands of dollars on elaborate systems allowing customers to listen to snippets of every CD in the store. It’s a convoluted system. Better to listen to tracks on the web.

And why not? The computer has been ubiquitous in the life of the “younger generation.” Their preferences determine popular music, and they will determine where the industry’s future lies (Folk and jazz fans may be temporarily safe from the digital onslaught, but according to SoundScan, Norah Jones alone sold more than 20% of all jazz CDs sold in 2003: these genres don’t offer big profits.)

Ultimately, a question of ethics arises. The question becomes not whether music be downloaded, but if the downloading will be legal. Originally, there were few standard, legal methods to download music. If you wanted to use the technology, a life of crime was the clearest option. It became the norm, and without clear consequences, the complicated ethical issues were hardly considered.

At the Computer Ethics conference held at St. John Fisher College in 2003, Professor Kenneth Himma of the University of Washington offered a parable of a person who steals a fraction of a cent from a million different bank accounts. Due to rounding, the bank customers would not notice the loss, but the thief would become rich. Himma argues that this action is still stealing; computer technology does not alter the ethical issues involved. Excuses of high CD prices and rich and famous musicians taking advantage of their fans still does not forgive criminal acts by the consumer

But, illegal downloading remains the norm and the prosecution of a handful of people simply does not worry the average college student. The reality of the relatively small number of prosecutions versus the number of individuals actually downloading illegally puts the odds on the side of the downloaders. Further questionable logic is applied: “If I download and don’t upload files, I’m okay”, or, “If I just burn the CD and erase the files, I’m okay,” whether it be true or not. The belief is that downloading does not take anything away from anyone. The concept of lost revenue becomes irrelevant when you really want to hear the new Modest Mouse tune at 2:30 in the morning when you’re writing a term paper that’s due in seven hours.

For those wishing to remain on the side of the law, we now have iTunes, (the new) Napster, and Walmart and however many other legal downloading sites the market can sustain. The music industry finally gets it. Eventually, everyone is going to download. Arguments about the loss of “the album” and cover art and independent music stores don’t matter anymore: the future has arrived.

Download cover art from a PDF file. Share playlists with strangers to download music based on the recommendations of other fans: it’s preferable to the advice from that clerk at the music store. And unlike the LP vs. CD debate, no one will argue that the digital sound from a CD is better than the sound from a download (at least I hope not.)

Someday, I predict, the concept of having a carefully artist-chosen sequence will be considered revolutionary. Consumers will pay one price to download an entire album, without separation into separate tracks, and this will be hailed as an artistic breakthrough.

Will people listen to singles? Or whole albums? It doesn’t matter. All is equally possible. Take your iPod (or MP3 player of choice) on a camping trip or connect to your car speakers or plug into your central home stereo. The idea of having music contained on separate CDs will be so clunky and so inconvenient, that true music aficionados won’t be able to understand how we could tolerate having our music contained in separate, physical objects.

Ultimately, downloading will prevail. Labels will continue to make money (despite illegal downloading, the elimination of production costs raises profits), the most financially successful musicians will show off their beautiful homes and twenty-seven cars on MTV’s Cribs, and the few remaining independent music stores will be relegated to selling outdated formats to aging fans. Music genres will continue to develop and subdivide and allow suburban teens to feel rebellious and parents “to not understand.”

As for illegal downloading, either technology must be invented to prevent it (and hackers will always find a way around any defense), or legal downloading must be so easy and so affordable as to eliminate the need. Or maybe, with an increased symbiotic relationship with the computer, an acceptance of computer-altered ethics (and computer-based crimes) will come naturally as well. If one million people each download one song illegally, that song may still sell two million on iTunes. And then, no one except the ethicists (and certainly not the music executives) will care.

Jeremy Sarachan owns Hammersaw Media, a web design company, and teaches in the department of Communication/Journalism at St. John Fisher College. Jeremy also used to own Fantastic Records, a local independent music store.