This is absurd in the extreme. Music is NOT a “zero-cost item.” Music costs money, from the cash laid out for musicians to purchase expensive equipment to the costs of recording, studio time and production. Society already has a way to support artists and musicians – it’s called the sale of their art and music. Do you think you should be able to walk into a museum and grab a couple of paintings for free, or pick up statue or two for the front lawn? If artists want to give away their art, that is their prerogative, but if you think all music should be free to everyone, then you can say goodbye to the music industry. Even the guy playing guitar in front of the local liquor store expects you to throw him a bit of change. Do you demand he entertain you for free as well? BTW – landscaping to some is an art, so can you stop by and cut my lawn, clean out the gutters and trim up the hedges, maybe plant a few flowers? But don’t expect any money for your trouble - I get tremendous "entertainment value" from watching others work at their art.
A live performance cannot be pirated, though. Artists will still get revenue over their monopoly over live performances (i.e. there is only one Eminem, there is only one Britney Spears, there is only one Bob Dylan etc), which is a considerable amount. I don't see them losing any revenue over music piracy. Don't they get ripped off by labels anyway? The money they lose to labels will go somewhere else than major corporate fat cat labels. Which, imho, is better.
The ones that get screwed by piracy the most are the Major record labels who screw over artists in the first place...sure two ends don't make a right but sometimes it's sweetPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.....as for Porfiry's opinion on music; i disagree, music is not a zero cost item though it is part of a culture. The real power of music and it's concerning areas should be in artists hands not in the record labels. BTW Porfiry talks???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think I would buy Cds if the price went down. Right now, it is like $20 for a CD, but I can burn a CD full of my favorite songs for 50 cents, Cds should be brought down about 75% in price, then I would be more supportive to my favorite bands.
Some of the best music I've discovered is the kind that a band devotes energy and feeling to...and doesn't expect shit back for. -Simply 'cause they wanna play in a band and become respected musicians and create music. In that case, they WANT you to distribute their music. So essentially, it is culture. I will gladly listen to this type of musician (if it's good, of course..) Most artists don't make their paychecks from CD revenues anyways. In fact, most bands wouldn't be able to afford bread if they don't tour often. I would buy more CD's if music was of higher quality, and they included more than just songs on a medium that I can easily reproduce myself. Hopefully, the new SACD's will change this (that's what the executives should be shooting their energy at.) Bottom Line: The RIAA does not have to worry. I will not download any Metallica, Linkin Park', Madonna or Britney spears. EDIT:: I'll admit, though - your argument is pretty much spot on. Making music is not free. But the point is that people shouldn't have to pay oodles of money for something over-priced and obsolete. I know I wont.
Porfiry sez: Substitute the word “Acquisition” for “The Music Industry” I’m not criticizing your decision to charge for the program, as that would be the logical thing to do. However, how can you state music should be free? Isn’t that rather hypocritical? Don’t the same reasons you’ve provided here apply to the music industry?
I am a huge mp3 pirate. I have a massive collection of 30gbs. Does this mean I was going to buy this music? hell no. Instead of buying C.D.s, I like to find little-known bands that are in many cases, as good or even better than mainstream bands and donate to them. Yes, donate. In most cases, even two or three bucks is more money then they would recieve from me buying their CD. While buying a C.D. would also help them, most of the money of the C.D. goes to the record, company, not the band. And I prefer having an MP3, anyway That's probably because, in many bands, the record companies do everything. Take NSYNC for example. A record company associate is the one who personally found and picked the members of the band, they did not exist as a band beforehand. All of the equipment was provided for them. The record company has a group of people who write songs, and other people who decide which band would sound best singing them. Then they higher choreographers, make concert dates, set everything up. Hell, NSYNC even has their voice electronically altered to sound better than it actually is. Then they go and complain that the record companies did'nt give them enough money. Well, that's what happens when you don't do Jack. In the case of the SACD's, I think they will probably be decrypted by some hacker eventually, just like Ps2 games
