free music

[blackeyed]

Should we really pay for the music we hear?
i gotta write an essay on the topic thought i should know other people's views too.
Thanks

[snags]

Do you pay for the food you eat or the petrol you put in your car? Enough said.

^ Having said that I use Limewire ;-)

[blackeyed]

lol! snag
u sure got your point
by the way i use limewire too!

[puternut]

I Sort of square my conscience a little by, truthfully, only downloading stuff that I would NOT expect the local music/cd shops to sell - possibly online specialist shops might.

Or

Some of the really old stuff which I feel the music companies have already made their mint out of. I personally think it ludicrous that we shuld have to pay well over the odds for some tracks which are twenty years or more old. As an example whty are we still expected to pay top dollar for Beatles tracks when EMI / Parlophone / Apple must have recovered not only production costs many, many times over and are really just fleecing Joe Public still. (Just used Beatles as exaple but there are countless more.

Probably won't sit well with others but .......

[blackeyed]

ok
but don't you think artists get enough money through product merchandise,concert tickets and record sale

[Graham-W]

They probably make some money on merchandise but last I heard, tours were running at a loss for the artists. Venues made money but the tours were that expensive to run that they are used only to promote their music sales.

[andy-hughes]

This is an interesting example of the generation gap.

It was sixteen in 1970 - then the message from the record comapnies was that 'Home taping is killing music' which was nonsense because most people who taped an album to see if they liked it, more often that not bought a copy of the official recording.

Advance forward, and we had had Napster, and now Limewire, and a large number of people who obtain music for free, and think it is their right.

Metal band Metallica sued Napster for free-sharing one of their songs, and were roundly pilloried for it, as multi-millionaires - which of course they are but ...

who decides when a musician is 'rich enough' to be able to have their music taken from them without payment for it? I think that to be fair to everyone, then every musician should be financially compensated for their work, no matter how much money they already have.

If you were told by your boss that you had received fifty weeks' salary, and that was enough, so you could work the other two for free, what would you say?

Theft of music is just that - theft, and it is morally wrong.

The crux of ytour argument should be that there is no fair way of deciding who no longer 'needs' the money, so be fair to everyone, and pay them for their work and talent. You wouldn't think of going to a theatre and expecting to be entertained for nothing, or a live concert, so why would you expect not to pay for recorded music just because there is a system to provide it free of charge?

Hope that helps.

[blackeyed]

thanks a lot andy for your answer.I am not gonna use all the points as i am for the argument but still,your points gave me a general view and that is helping a lot.:)
Cheers

[flobadob]

Is there any music that you can get for free, the artist of which is not already a millionaire? I doubt it. If I really like an album or artist I'll buy the album. Just cos I download something I don't think it's really taking from the artist as I would probably never have bought it anyway.

[blackeyed]

you share the same view as mine flobadob!

[saxy_jag]

Proportionally, most recording artists and songwriters don't make that much. Very little of what you pay for a download/CD actually reaches the artists' or songwriters' bank accounts. Recording studios, agents, managers, backing artists, retailers (online or in store), crew etc. all have to be paid or take their cut.

Now, I don't know whether you work or not, blackeyed, but I doubt you'd be happy to spend several weeks and months working on a product that you weren't sure would sell or not, only to find that if people did like it, you'd be expected to provide it for nothing. After all, you can always make a living selling a few pens on the side.

However, if an artist wants to give away their work, then fine, they should be allowed to. I believe George Michael did it, although he was widely criticised for doing so. Otherwise, as snags pointed out, someone's job is to create it.

[andy-hughes]

Glad to help blackeyed.

To add to a previous answer - if a musician decides to offer their music free of charge, that is their choice. However, I object ot artists having their work taken from them without appropriate payment.

Metallica - as I advised were roundly criticised for legal action against a company offering their work for free without their consent. Ironically, the band have always been champions of music-sharing, and from their earliest success, set aside a special section of their concert venues for people wishing to tape-record the concert, and share the music with friends - as they band used to do as youngsters. Offering music is one thing - having it taken is amother.

[flobadob]

blackeyed, I just meant to say that if you use any of my ideas in your essay I expect you to pay me royalties or I will sue the arse off you.

[blackeyed]

i did use your idea flabodab, and all the royalty i can pay you is a sincere thank you,i hope thats good enough for you.

and thank you all the others too for answering :o)