1. I don't think we ever buy the intellectual property itself. Otherwise, we would be able to duplicate and sell the music all we want after we bought the piece. You may say we buy the right to use the property (listen to it). But that's not correct either. We don't have to buy the music to listen to it. We can listen on the radio. We can borrow our friend's CD, etc. 2. If we are buying both the music and the medium, then why do we have to pay full price if we buy the same songs on another medium? Shouldn't we just pay for the medium only the second time around?
It's like buying a ticket to an art exhibit. Just because you bought the ticket doesn't mean you get to trash the gallery and take the art home. You bought access to the medium (museum). You bought access to that's person's property so that you could experience it. But that does not give you ownership over it. That's what copywright law protects. It keeps anyone from claiming ownership over something they did not create. The radio station is another medium by which you hear the music. In this case there is no charge. That's because the artist gave them permission to play the song. Your ticvket was free just like it would be for a free art exhibit. But again, that does not give you the right to take the property and do with it as you please. You just had free access to it. That being said. I break the law. but that's the reasoning. You have to remember that the law was created to promote human decensy. So the question is? Does stealing an mp3 hurt anyone. And it does. It's hurts those trying to make a living off of their creation. So the law makes sense. And we can be punished for it.
The way I download music, getting entire albums even if I don't like all of the songs, attests to the primary reason I download music at all. CD's are too expensive. I don't mind that I get an album full of songs I don't care for. I do mind that the cost of CDs has gone up, not down. Someone suggested paying $1 per song. That's on the right track. But most of the albums I have contain 15-20 songs so that $1/song is not a reduction in price. I think it should be something more like $.10/ song. Even with that cost, it is higher than what it costs me to make my own CD but I might be willing to pay more for the convenience of being able to find more obscure albums. It's just too hard to feel sorry for wealthy execs and musicians, even when I like the music. I'll pay full price for people like Mo Leveritt (profits go to Desire Street Ministries) or small bands selling CD's at their concerts to make up for the money they shelled out to produce the album. Why don't artists set up a PayPal account that we could contribute to if we want the money to go directly to them?
Good points. They make sense, except this: It is legal to record music from radio broadcast. It is not legal to download music from the internet. Why?
Which do you guys like better: Kazaa or iMesh? I use iMesh. free free free!!! It's not stealing, it's SHARING.
Technically, it is legal to record it FOR YOURSELF. That's why they say things like "no unauthorized re-broadcast or distribution." The radio station is licensed to broadcast the song by paying royalties to the record label and artist. There is a difference between recording something off of the radio and copying it off the disc while allowing anyone and everyone to download it. Also, there is a significant difference between overprocessed and overcompressed songs taped off of the radio with beginnings and endings cut off by overbearing DJ's and commercials for Mattress Mac and high quaility downloads from the original CD that can be duplicated as many times as you like. I'm not going to defend the RIAA. They are absolute and total morons. The whole concept of suing your customers is maybe the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. I have also written at length about this topic so I'm not going to go over it again. However, this is not a good argument for downloading.
Just to comment on this... First, the VAST majority of musicians are not wealthy. Only a very small percentage of artists even derive enough income from music to sustain them few years let alone being set for life. The artists who are most hurt by downloading are the artists who sit on the fringe of the music industry and make the least. As a result, the pool of talent is dramatically decreased when labels drop artists who don't sell or see their sales drop due to downloads. You aren't punishing Madonna or Metallica or Shania Twain by downloading. They are loaded. You are punishing the bands with limited scope, usually the same bands who are the most influential for the next generation of musicians. Second, the reason artists do not take "donations" is because they expect to be paid for the work they do just like the rest of us. They get paid for making and playing music. They don't need charity. They work for a living. And before everyone goes off on the level of "work" involved, consider that most artists have a viable career that lasts about 5 years before they slide into oblivion. Most of those 5 years are spent on the road in a van travelling and working your ass off. The work put in by most travelling musicians is brutal and thankless, not the glamor-fest everyone sees on MTV. Look, I don't blame ANYONE for having serious issues with the RIAA and their tactics. You're preaching to the choir because artists and musicians have long decried the horrible treatment they get from the industry at large. It has only gotten worse since the majors swallowed up the last of the independants in the late 80's. But, artists will ultimately bear the brunt of the problems caused by downloading. The industry always passes on the losses to artists by cutting their rosters and/or eliminating promotion for everyone except the artists who already sell millions of records. There are plenty of books available that describe how the industry came about. As Billy Joel once said, "It ain't the Boy Scouts." This is an industry built by theives, con artists and the mafia. This is just the first time their nasty side has been exposed to the public. Don't blame the musicians. They are just stuck in the middle.
That's certainly a grey area, but had he made a copy while the original media was still playable, he could still listen to the copy after the original wore out, was destroyed, etc. As for CD Singles, another thing to consider beyond the fact that the record companies started shipping fewer CD Single units prior to Napster and file swapping coming on the scene is that they have raised prices of CD Singles. A CD Single can cost $8 to $14 depending on the artist and other factors. Raising prices as high as they have, one would expect a serious decline in sales. But what I really hate is when articles (like the one in the Chronicle today) have claims like this: The rise of file-sharing networks has coincided with a decline in compact disc sales, which have fallen more than 25 percent since Napster debuted in 1999. Sales didn't immediately decline when Napster came on the scene. It's just phrased that way in attempt to show causation. I could say that unemployment has risen two full points since Clinton's first full year in office, which would be true. But it wouldn't be painting an accurate picture.
