Free Music - Guilt Trip?

by **FishEye** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 9:33 pm

We all do it - download great music off the net for free, that is. Just because it\'s near impossible to nail online thieves, are we justified in stealing from people who deserve every penny of their (dwindling)fortunes?

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 12:29 am

It\'s not \'near impossible\' to nail down the downloaders (consciously avoiding the word \'thieves\') - if I remember correctly, Metallica produced a list of 30,000 names of users who downloaded their songs over Internet, in that famous case where they sued Napster. If the ISPs would play ball, it is quite easy to track down - \"once you\'re on the Net, forget your privacy\" is the mantra to remember.
 
 Coming to the actual question, there are arguments put forward by both sides. Many musicians in fact support online music as it offers them a much greater audience than what radios, TVs and record companies can offer them. Their deals with record companies are also often one-sided, favoring the label rather than the musician. And for the customer, he/she is forced to pay the price of an album, of which 1 or 2 songs maybe good and the rest are just fillers. And in the case of classics, you\'ll never find them in the market - so, Net is probably the only way of finding an old \'gem of a song\'. Also, people use online music to \'sample\', before they go out and purchase the CDs. In the earlier days, you never knew if an album was worth purchasing and just took it based on the artist credentials.
 
 There are priced download services like iTunes catching on, but at $0.99 per song, it works out far more expensive than the cost of a CD, which comes for as low as Rs.250 - 350 (International) and Rs.100 - Rs 200 (for Indian music). The price of cassettes is still lower at Rs.50 - Rs.125) Also, paying online is a drag and there are so many security issues.
 
 To conclude, until a reliable online service comes into being, which is affordable by Indian standards and secure enough to make online payments, \'stealing free music\' is the easiest and fastest way to get the songs you want.

by **jethro** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 2:28 am

why shld free music be wrong in the first place......it shld have always been free but got commercialised somewhere along the way.......and its time the bands realised that in the long run, giving free music to their fans wld ensure that they wld never go out of vogue and wld always have a loyal fan base......the Dead allowed fans to tape their concerts and sell them as bootlegs and they didnt do too badly

by **FishEye** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 6:46 am

well... may not be impossible to trace folks who download stuff illegally but it sure is difficult/impractical to nail them. how many people fear arrest when they download a song off a website that\'s not approved of either by the artists or the record companies? of course, doesn\'t help that there isn\'t a law against it either... or is there?
 
 that\'s not really my point, though. the web\'s the perfect medium for music distribution (for any kind of digital content, for that matter). but unless the owners/makers of the music themselves put it up for sale/distribution, technically, we\'re still thieves. iTunes is selling songs for a buck a piece... assuming that they have *all* songs ever made and that you could easily afford to buy what you wanted, would you still download stuff off kazaa?

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:08 pm

FishEye,
 
 As I said, iTunes seems expensive at $1 / song and it\'s funny the way all songs are treated \'equal\' irrespective of the popularity of the song/artiste, no. of years since its release etc. Moreover, I mentioned about the security risks with online payments.
 
 When/where I grew up, the record stores used to record custom song lists on cassettes against orders, and though such transactions didn\'t involve any payment to either the artistes or labels, no one considered it a piracy. In fact people used to prefer buying music that way, as they could choose better, more reliable tapes (from Sony, TDK etc.) as against what the HMVs of this world could sell.
 
 There\'s always a price to be paid even when we download for \'free\' - we pay for bandwidth, the computing resources used to play them.... it\'s not totally free. These costs would work out more than buying a CD from a record store. Let\'s say the artistic output has to be paid for. But what about the artistic input (the principles of musicology / songwriting, the values / beliefs conveyed in the songs, the principles of promotion, marketing and distribution used by the labels - the free knowledge pool that the musicians and the labels have taken for granted and dipped into, without feeling guilty?) - who pays for them?
 
 In the pharmaceutical world, there\'s a validity period for patented drugs - I think it is 14 years, after which the knowledge/technology becomes property of the whole humanity, and any body can manufacture them - they become generic drugs. I think a similar approach should be followed with regard to music as well. I frankly do not have any guilt in downloading 70s / 80s songs - they\'ve had their time and made enough money for the artistes and labels.

by **Pavan** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:21 pm

why the hell do u think the musicians should sing free for u jethro...why should they put so much effort to gain no money..fame is bulls*** without money...

Free Music - Guilt Trip?