Whats your opinion?
2007-12-05 06:52:06 · 31 answers · asked by Melora 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
THE RIGHT ANSWER>
No, just the pockets of the lawyers of the record companies.
2007-12-05 06:56:16 · answer #1 · answered by LandRover 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Artists need money to survive and keep on making their albums.
The usual justifications boil down to one of two arguments, both equally pathetic.
The first essential argument is that it's not actually stealing, because nothing has physically been removed. Clearly, these people do not understand and/or respect intellectual property. When you buy a CD or legally download a song, you aren't buying the song. You're buying a license to play that copy of the song, and are restricted by that. The person who put the file out there illegally was breaking the law, and you have taken stolen goods. That's a crime.
The other one is more of a pathetic communist bent. Basically, the downloader will say, "[Band] makes so much money that I can get their music for free without hurting them." True, nobody's individual download makes someone go bankrupt. However, that isn't really the pathetic thing. The argument there is that the downloader deserves music for free, and has the power to decide that a certain band is making too much money.
It's a dollar for a song, less on some web sites. Suck it up. If you can't afford music, wait until you can. Music is a luxury; you don't need it to survive.
The person above me just said, "I wouldn't buy it anyway." That is completely irrelevant. That is equivalent to taking a Porsche out of a dealer's lot and saying it's okay, because you wouldn't have bought it anyway. Read the thing about intellectual property before you say it's not the same thing.
Buying a record, tape, CD, MP3, or any other recording format I've left out is not buying the music. It is buying the right to own and play music.
REM has no obligation to make music for us. They have no obligation to record it for us, or to distribute it for us. We do not inherently deserve REM albums. They offer us their product in exchange for money, and that is the only way we can legitimately own it. If we get it for free, we are breaking the law.
2007-12-05 07:00:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, the music industry is suffering not just because of crappy music, but because of the audience that they are playing for. The last big music buying generation was mine, around 2000 people my age (12ish) couldn't buy enough Cd's and the sales were great, but now the generation that would buy the music, just isn't, thus the music sales are down and the industry is suffering.
2007-12-05 06:57:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion I think they are to an extent but music artists are still earning a lot of money. I don't think it's right that illegal download sites are being used, it's not fair on the artist.
2007-12-05 07:40:23 · answer #4 · answered by MOONWALKER1♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
It Helps People Get Music When They Dont Have Money To Buy It
Its Not Like There Losing Out On Money Because ii Wouldnt Buy It Anyway
=D
2007-12-05 06:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, all who are in the industry are still very rich!
when we see an artist still doing his day job because he cannot afford to party, drive nice cars and spend hundreds on needless things, then we can start doing something about illegal downloading.
ps: illegal donwloading DOES NOT hurt struggling up and coming artists, purely because not many people know about them and their stuff will not be on a download site.
2007-12-05 06:57:24 · answer #6 · answered by badger 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes. I know everyone says that the "artist" is making billions but the other people aren't. say they recording studio, the people that run the mikes and the other stuff the back up singers and other musicians the people that process the recording into CDs and when they aren't making money they will stop recording anything you will be stuck with the crap we have now. with no music your radio will be stuck with talk shows and rush Limbaugh(?) and the televangelists. nno one works with out recompence (money,food, such) so they will just stop.
2007-12-05 07:03:29 · answer #7 · answered by seanamhair_nathair_sgiathach 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It isn't destroying the industry. It could eventually from not making any revenues which it is slowly doing.
2007-12-05 06:55:35 · answer #8 · answered by It's MIRANDA!!!! 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not at all, i don't see any starving musicians...they make plenty off of concerts, royalties from their music being on tv, commercial, movies, celebrity endorsements...
until they're making less money than me, I'm not going to feel bad for them...nobody needs to be that filthy rich just because they were blessed with a voice or good guitar fingers
2007-12-05 06:56:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I do not think that they are, because music companies seem to still be making a lot of money.
2007-12-05 07:08:59 · answer #10 · answered by Tony M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, emo music is.
Illegal downloads may hurt struggling artists. But famous pop artists? No.
2007-12-05 06:56:34 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋