The MP 3″We are born savage and self-centered, and then, unless we move to Hollywood, we get over it. We become civilized. We enter a state in which we understand that sharing is good.” – John Perry Barlow In the past few years record sales have plummeted to an all time low, the record industry has since been frantically searching for the crack in the dyke; a reason for all this. The most obvious target that has been chosen by these corporations is the act of internet file sharing, more specifically the programs that run these services like the previously shut down “Napster” and the currently battling “Kazaa.” There is no doubt that file sharing is a factor in declining record sales but does it really deserve all the blame? Maybe today’s mainstream music lacks a certain quality that would normally motivate a consumer to purchase the CD. There are many factors that could cause declining sales, one of them being file sharing but does the record industry really have the power to classify our right to share as illegal? The number of users for file swapping programs is in the millions.
In its height Napster held 36 million people in the palm of its hand, and since the program has shut down more and more like it have been sprouting too fast for the recording industry to shut them down (Gaither, 2).
The Term Paper on File Sharing Music Napster Industry
... in the eyes of record executives. The leaders of the music industry believed the development of file sharing technology was their ... the record industry toward Napster gave the record industry a bad name. All of a sudden record industry executives assume that record sales would ... action against Napster. The record industry executives ended up winning the trial and Napster was shut down. It turns out ...
The companies that are filing suit apparently expect us to be sympathetic towards them because they aren’t rolling in the dough like they used to. A CD costs me about $20 after taxes, as a college student and normal person that money is better spent doing time in my bank account, it is almost the same lifestyle as subsistence farming. If I can receive the same music for free over the internet than why bother giving more money to excessive rock stars or silicone divas.
The richest of the rich seem to be the only ones complaining as well, small time acts such as “Battery Park” practically rely on the free trade of music over the internet, mainly because they cannot afford airplay on major radio or television stations. It is the only way for bands like these to be heard. Lead singer J. Brown of “Battery Park” however admits that “Downloads don’t necessarily equate to sales, we hope they like what they hear and want to hear more so they ” ll purchase the CD. I know of this one band that saw a half-million downloads on MP 3. com but only sold 15 CD’s (Beau prez, 2).” Apparently these smaller bands use file sharing sites to develop a following and a presence, hoping for sales.
The fact that shared music is free is not the only reason people are turning to this method. Most radio stations and television programs like “TRL” only play mainstream music, the majority of people out there don’t need to hear Spears singing “Oops I did it again” for the millionth time, we are in pursuit of something new and undiscovered and the file sharing system has opened a wide welcoming door for all of us. There is only one conceivable downside to online file sharing. The fact that we spend money on CD’s is maybe a show of appreciation from the listeners. Does file sharing devalue digital music? Perhaps; “Today’s culture is different, consumers of music have become accustomed to obtaining it for free, attaching as much significance to it as they might to a briefly fashionable article of clothing (Walsh, 1).” This may be the case, but the temporary music files are mostly songs that people would never even think about buying, and only downloaded because they could.
The Essay on November 2000 Napster Music People
Should Napster be prosecuted Napster a free music sharing software is in the mist of being sued by many music corporation for copyright infringement. Napster users download and upload copyright music without the permission of the copyright owners which is illegal. People who write, perform, and produce the music don't even recieve a royalty from there work which is considered stealing. Napster the ...
Personally I don’t think this argument holds up much, because most people don’t have any problem paying money for music they like, the past has proven that. People tend to take the easier method however, almost always, and it is very convenient to obtain sought after music in your home. How can we be blamed and called pirates when all we are doing is taking a logical approach to getting what we want. Mostly good things can come from file sharing. The recording media megaliths and artists need to step out of their shells and realize a better way. Perhaps we are perched on the edge of a revolution, a new awakening; maybe people will see that the act of sharing music we enjoy is not a crime but a mandated right.
It is our human nature to share. Without it, as a people would be nowhere. Literature, old stories and myths would barely exist. Jokes and beliefs would be solely for the ones who created it, a society of selfishness, one that reflects the modern music business world. Does an artist really deserve royalties on every downloaded copy of their song? Do authors rant and rave when we photo copy a page out of their books? No, and the music artists (puppets) should start taking note of that.
No labor of theirs was put into the duplication the song so why should I add to their already swollen bank accounts? If this trend of selfishness continues, what would become of the future, will lending CD’s to a friend become illegal? The point is how greedy can you get about your work, especially “Art.” Music; to a true listener is never under appreciated, if anything I am more excited and enthusiastic about my overall positive gain, provided by file sharing service programs.
