Should music sharing programs be legal?, Give me your opinion. Options

[Jen]

I am writing a paper for my music history class, and I just wanted the opinions of my fellow 6gc'ers.

What do you think about music sharing programs, such as Napster, Limewire, etc.? Do you think they should be legal (as in completely free)? And why?

Please, only educated replies.

I believe that they shouldn't be legal, because artists and bands work very hard to produce songs, and I don't think it's fair for the public to download an entire album for free. I do believe though, that if certain artists want to allow the public to hear their music free, they can. But artists that do not want their music to be free, should be blocked from the public.

What do ya'll think?

[96bluevert]

well it's not legal, to start. but for good reason, like you said, they work hard to get some hit songs made and can't make much money off of it when people just dl and share for free.

i've started just downlading off itunes and one site that is free that is still legal cause its for unsigned artist only. Though when i did dl for free off of Aries, i wound up with a virus, so thats why i dont trust those programs anymore.

[BlackCelicaGT94]

This is a hard subject. Theres so many "ifs"

If you are a new and upcoming artist and youre not signed to a record label and probably wont make a million dollars when you tour like Justin Timberlake then I think it should be up to whether you want your music out there or not. If youre someone like Justin Timberlake, Rolling Stones etc who are going to make your million(s) either way then you should let your music be shared. I think it really comes down to the artist and its record label.

I know that I would rather go buy a cd rather than download it so I have supported pretty much all the artists who's cds I have. Ive also supported someone like Justin Timberlake so much in the past 7 years that I wouldnt feel bad downloading his cd because Ive bought tickets to his concerts, every cd put out by him and Nysnc, etc.

[Batman722]

music is and should be free. It's sound waves in patterns, that's all.

artists make money from touring. That is their job. Not to mention the money they make from merchandising.

If artists want to make someone pay for their music, then they shouldn't release it for people to hear.

[BloodyStupidDave...]

I am writing a paper for my music history class, and I just wanted the opinions of my fellow 6gc'ers.

What do you think about music sharing programs, such as Napster, Limewire, etc.? Do you think they should be legal (as in completely free)? And why?

Please, only educated replies.

I believe that they shouldn't be legal, because artists and bands work very hard to produce songs, and I don't think it's fair for the public to download an entire album for free. I do believe though, that if certain artists want to allow the public to hear their music free, they can. But artists that do not want their music to be free, should be blocked from the public.

What do ya'll think?

They (the programs) should be legal. It isn't the program that breaks the law, it is the people that use it (when they use it in a particular way). It is akin to asking whether radio broadcasts should be legal or not. Most broadcasters operate legally but a few do not.

It is worth pointing out that digital music distribution, including music file sharing programs, are very important to up-coming bands and niche bands - these services provide a very effective and inexpensive way to get their music heard by their fans and increase their penetration of the market. There are also a few big-name bands that are embracing digital music distribution to increase their fan-base, pre-release their music, release a special mix not available on other media, market a new album and so on.

Less well-known bands often cite that they get more money by cutting out the middle-man: operating their own record label and using digital distribution than they would by using one of the large record companies. Interestingly although there is little hard evidence, it would appear that bands that sell their music direct to the consumer from their own website or from iTunes actually experience less piracy that bands that only distribute their music via CDs.

As many music sharing programs are actually file-sharing programs, as there are many legitimate uses for sharing files, as music files are just like other files - a stream of binary numbers and as any sequence of numbers can be infinitely transformed into almost any other sequence of numbers by applying a mathematical function to them, it would likely to be rather hard to enforce in practice. Any such law might cause legitimate music sites such as iTunes to close (depending on just how the law was worded).

My personal view is that most music is vastly overpriced with very little of what I pay going to the artists. I also feel that the music choice available from the large record companies is poor, with much of it poor quality by maunfactured bands with little talent. The Internet is changing many industries (look at how blogs have changed the press industry for instance*). I see more good than bad in the way the record industry is changing - being forced to change. I relish the new music now available to me and the ease with which I can discover new bands. I'll continue to pay for music I perceive has value but refuse to continue to be ripped off by the large companies operating like a cartel in the industry.

This post has been edited by BloodyStupidDavey: Mar 29, 2007 - 6:12 PM

[BloodyStupidDave...]

(look at how blogs have changed the press industry for instance*)

* I heard a great story recently. A journalist was commenting on the way his industry had changed and remarked how one notable CEO recently wrote a blog piece challenging how the press cover end-of-year financial results from large IT companies. Apparently the CEO had a higher readership and recieved 10x the number of comments on that piece that the journalist received for his main article of the week in a prestigious Sunday paper

[BloodyStupidDave...]

If you are a new and upcoming artist and youre not signed to a record label and probably wont make a million dollars when you tour like Justin Timberlake then I think it should be up to whether you want your music out there or not. If youre someone like Justin Timberlake, Rolling Stones etc who are going to make your million(s) either way then you should let your music be shared.

That is a very good point. Many upcoming music artists are liberal - almost bohemian- in their attitude. They explicitly state that the most important thing is getting their music heard. They want their music to be heard by as many people as possible. This seems to be a common theme among all artists and performers whether they write books, perform music, paint or whatever - they want their work to be experienced by the public at large. However they need to make a living just like anyone else and deserve the right to choose when, where and how to charge for their work.

A difficult subject.

[DSToyo]

I dont have much background on this, but ill state my opinion anyway . Ok, i think that it should be illegal to download anything and everything you want from pretty much any artist you want. Because of what you said about the artists doing all the work and not selling the number of albums they maybe should. I dont really know the aspects on what elements the artists get paid for, but it seems as though people downloading music are taking away (significantly) from theyre album sales. This topic could go on forever, but (i know this contradicts what is said) as long as music is offered for free, i do take advantage of it, even though i know that it is wrong and financially bad for the artist. Thats just my 2cents

This post has been edited by DSToyo: Mar 29, 2007 - 7:19 PM

[cnelson]

Without limewire, napster, etc... artist wouldn't get their music out their.. like somone said they make their money from touring and merchadising. -cnelson.

[Davesceli]

I think that music sharing programs should be legal. Its just a hi-tech way of doing what our parents did back in the day....mixtapes anyone. That essentially was music sharing...its the same thing we do today.

Nobody can say that they have never gotten free music....how many of us have burned copies of cds???

[Consynx]

legal for any song older than 1/2 a year. . .
something like that

[x_itchy_b_x]

music is a hobby, go tour or get a real job and help people.
capitalism ftw Money money money money. bah.

[jason]

lets put out an albumn that has 12 songs and a total of 3 diffent styles, every other song will sound the same - then how about we buy some huge mansion with lots of frivelous things and get on mtv cribs n show how wealthy we are and how irresponsible we are with our spending

haha, im not much a fan of new music, when i buy cds i like 2-3 songs if that everything else isint that great, i usually download a song or two when a new albumn comes out, if its good i buy the cd if it sucks or isint that good then i either ditch it or just leave it on my ipod till it gets annoying - and then ditch it

if you want to do the right thing then buy a cd, if your lazy, cheap, or just dont think the $13+ is worth it then download

end of rant

[lagos]

music is and should be free. It's sound waves in patterns, that's all.

artists make money from touring. That is their job. Not to mention the money they make from merchandising.

If artists want to make someone pay for their music, then they shouldn't release it for people to hear.

the problem is that it costs money to record, produce, mix and master that music you think should be free. it takes MANY hours of work to create those sound waves and patters .

[Batman722]

music is and should be free. It's sound waves in patterns, that's all.

artists make money from touring. That is their job. Not to mention the money they make from merchandising.

If artists want to make someone pay for their music, then they shouldn't release it for people to hear.

the problem is that it costs money to record, produce, mix and master that music you think should be free. it takes MANY hours of work to create those sound waves and patters .

that's why their producers/labels (record companys) take a large percentage, or should I say give a percentage to the artist

[uberschall]

what kills me is that many of the great classical composers died before their works were recognized. they toiled for years on pieces that seldom brought them financial gain.

now we have a bunch of spoiled, whiny, arrogant hacks who have fans that actually DO recognize them (for whatever reason) yet they complain that they don't get enough money.

it's a good thing that holst, beethoven, and so many others weren't in it for the money...we would not have music as we know it.

same could be said for any other arts. countless painters, poets, sculptors, and painters lived in poverty creating things that could have made them rich were their talents acknowledged sooner.

putting a price on music (or any art) is difficult, if not impossible. i haven't paid for a recording in years. don't get me wrong...it's okay for musicians to make money. put on a show that entertains and impresses me, and i'll pay to come see it. i have no problem with that.

but i'm all for free music.

[cnelson]

music is a hobby.. if your good enough people will pay to go see you at a show.. if not, than get a differant line of work.. believe me all the artist that complain about people "steeling" their music is the same artsit that sell out concerts.. and without people "steeling" they would NEVER sell out shows.