Richard Simmons, the lead singer of the rock band KISS, was quoted (should that be "how" here? I'm not sure.) speaking out in an unpleasant and informal manner against illegal file sharing with following quote: "It's just them (you should define who "they" are before this. Seems a little out of context. It sounds like you're still talking about file sharing, which is what you're introducing the quote to, but really, is aimed at those who allow it, whoever they are) guilty of letting foxes into the henhouse and then wondering why there are no eggs or chickens Every college kid, every freshly cleaned kid's face should have been wiped off his face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and their cars and nipped them right there at the beginning” (Source). In his statement, Richard summarizes the indignation that many musicians feel towards those who steal music through file sharing. (also known as music piracy). This anger is justified by the morally accepted view that stealing is unethical. Even music piracy is not a miserable theft. “As a result of global and US piracy of sound recordings, the US economy loses $12.5 billion in total output each year” (Source). However, what if the unhappiness that Richard and other artists feel from illegal file sharing also made millions of people happy? Would the wrongs caused by music theft be morally justified by the prodigious amount of pleasure generated by music piracy? This is a similar question to the one posed by the founder of a philosophy known as utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham. Through the question, Bentham concluded that “[t]he highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the general equilibrium of…middle of the paper…produces a positive (as opposed to a negative) net utility. Considering that the sum of the net utility of each component in the illegal file sharing controversy is a positive value, a utilitarian would argue that the verdict is clear: illegal file sharing is morally correct and should be allowed to exist on the basis of fact that maximizes utility for the greatest number of people. However, this conclusion raises an important question. Should the pleasure of the many justify the infringement of the rights of the few? After all, music piracy is stealing the property of the artists they created music. Although the utilitarian claims that these rights must be sacrificed for the greater good, there seems to be something intrinsically and morally wrong with this statement. Which begs the question of what is more important: individual rights or the overall happiness of society?