2007-02-05 02:51:06 · 8 answers · asked by Diesel Weasel 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
I think to a certain degree it should be, yes. Yeah, musicians should get paid for what they do just like everyone else, but when it comes down to record labels getting cranky about their copyrights just to make sure their own pockets are as lined as possible, the battle over music starts to get ridiculous. If music were a little more free, more people would listen to it and to me it's a form of art, and art should be free for people to discover and enjoy. People have been pirating music for decades, it's just that now with technology being what it is, it's easier for the record companies and some artists to see that. I'm sure that there are plenty of artists that support their fans copying their music for personal use, much like the Grateful Dead did years ago when they started setting up areas at their concerts for people to come and record the shows.
2007-02-05 03:03:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've played in bands for years and have done quite a bit of research on this subject. When you purchase a CD or DVD, you do NOT own the music on that disc. You own the plastic disc itself and nothing more. And you do NOT have the right to make copies and do whatever you want with it. The record or movie company issuing the disc is licensing the content from the artists (or whoever owns the rights) to sell its pieces of plastic.
Many years ago, when the recording technology became mainstream, record labels realized that they would not be able to stop this from happening (I believe it was Disney that filed the lawsuit against Sony back in the 70's) so they tacked on a surcharge to all blank media- essentially a 'guilty until proven innocent' charge.
The problem nowadays is that, in the digital age of downloading, there is no plastic required so in essence, you are paying for nothing. You do not own the music file that you paid for, you're only 'licensing' its use; that is why iTunes is legally capable of limiting the number of machines you can play it on.
It's also why I never buy downloads....well, that and the crappy sound quality.
2007-02-05 04:13:13 · answer #2 · answered by D-Zyne 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have never had a probem buying music I like. I buy second-hand CDs. I have never owned an Ipod, and I never download music from the internet. The selection is still limited, and I prefer a good CD player to a computer with crappy little speakers. No, music should not be free. Call me an audiophile if you will - somethings are worth paying for.
2007-02-05 04:51:07 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, downloading free music is theft. You'd might as well just walk into a store and walk out with a few CDs, it's pretty much the same thing
2007-02-05 03:01:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I see no difference in taking a photograph
of a famous statue, and putting it on your wall. And
I see no difference in printing a copy of a map from
the Internet, to use in a school project. And I see no difference in hearing a bar band do "Free Bird" or
"Stairway To Heaven" or "Friends In Low Places"
And I see no difference in listening to a song on the radio or listening to a song on the Internet or listening
to a song on VH1. Yes, music should be free, and,
yes, I know that I am one of few, who feel this way.
2007-02-05 15:49:09 · answer #5 · answered by persnickety1022 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no way...i should be allowed to do what I want after i purchase it...as long as i dont sample it or sell it off as my own product. I cannot use trademarked materials and copywritten lyrics or other items as my own.
2007-02-05 02:55:31 · answer #6 · answered by jhock216 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
The artist should always be paid for what he/she creates.
And if it gives you pleasure then you should pay for it.
2007-02-05 02:55:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you want to do your job and not get paid?
2007-02-05 02:58:57 · answer #8 · answered by Get Real 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋