An interesting question I've only recently begun to think about. If you had the option to make music that artists have produced entirely free would you? Think about it, according to humanity music is proprietary / intellectual property of the artists / record labels. What if you could make it so no one had to pay for music anymore, some sort of government compensation is given to the artists instead (for producing useful goods). Imagine that all musicians that have a certain level of popularity are given enough to live on by the government of the United States in exchange for entertaining the masses (similar to Rome). Do you think you'd be willing to make all music free without restrictions for it's usage? I shall await your answers because this is very argumentative at best but also the way things may develop in the future. My initial thinking was if the RIAA does not lower costs for music buyers then pirating will surely increase, and as time goes by even if they shutdown the pirateers there will be an establishment of intranets, those in local areas can exchange music they own through a small intranet instead of a large one thereby limiting the number of people who know about it (thus never being noticed).
While I do believe that the bulk of an artists income should come from touring, I have issues with pothead hippies getting everything they want in life for free.
The only problem I see with that proposal is WHO decides who's music is worth being supported by the government. That would create an even BIGGER problem than pirating!! For all the problems with the current system, it's still better to make it market/demand driven. What will probably be the next step is just a reduction in prices charged by the labels as pirating becomes even more of a problem.
Well the people deciding would be citizens, they can track sales and so the items being pirated or sold the most would be credited with special compensation by the goverment and their music put up for free distribution.
The problem is that pothead hippies and other folks have a sense of entitlement when it comes to stuff such as music, thus no 'price' would ever be low enough for them.
Well I don't think that's a problem, I think they're right. Music wouldn't exist without them paying for it all these years, just because the internet makes distributing it so simple doesn't mean they should still be paying the same fees. You see they were imagining they had an actual material on their hands, something tangible, what they've discovered is that music really doesn't have any value (monetary) but does have a emotional one. People aren't going to pay 10 dollars for a CD when they make 10 dollars an hour it's just common sense, why bother when you can download it? If wages increased perhaps people would pay, but then artists would be annoyed seeing commoners with more an more things (they wanna feel special).
Nope. It would create one HUGE bureaucratic nightmare to administer!!!! There would be cries of "foul!" and lawsuits that would never end!! Obviously, you've not thought this through very far at all. Sorry.
Aww, fine. Maybe you're right but I still think music should be free IMO. Music has no real value it's just words being sung out of a voice. You're right man but you know what? Those artists don't even write the songs they sing! Hell they don't even know who does, they get handed the music and then sing like a robot that's it, probably less than 20% of the music these artists sing is something they had a hand in making. Considering that your argument is invalid because they didn't put any work into making the music just their voice and some time. The real people behind it are the composers and writers of their songs! So yea I say they don't deserve to be paid squat for just singing alone.
I produce and have been doing so for about 10 years now. All my stuff is free and always has been. In fact I LOVE when I hear my stuff somewhere and people SHARE the music. For me its not about money at all, regardless I will always be producing music because its what I love to do. I love to share my music with anyone free of cost. For me its not "WORK" its "FUN" However for mainstream artists it consumes them. There are few that have maintained that true love for the music even though its still not free. U2 is a good example. I understand some people put so much time and effort into their music that they dont have time for another job so the money for food has to come somewhere....... But to quote one of my fav groups "Cunning Lynguists" "why don't you rap for food then?"
I'm not saying they don't deserve compensation, what I'm saying is since they don't likely make the songs themselves and have almost no hand in it's composing why the hell should they make all the money and why do we even pay them to hear them satisfy their egos? I think they're paid to much and it's wrong. I actually think that as time progresses people will become less star struck with musicians and come to view them as people who make way to much money doing almost nothing for it. When that time comes then they'll be the ones begging for hand outs in the local Walmart! That aside if they don't write / compose their own songs what possible reason would we have to pay them? I think there should be government compensation like Rome would give to those fighting, that's a good start. Then it's all free, the music.
Are you claiming that all artists are pothead hippies? Rockbands, country bands, blues bands, orchestras, choirs, etc.? They spend a majority of their life learning to play an instrument and rewards for the fruits of their labor should be dictated to them? Should the income of writers be limited to their book signing tours? Should the income of actors be limited to live plays? Quit expecting to be entitled to the work of someone else for nothing. Pay them for their work or do without.
How is it an invalid point? Do you have a link with statisitcs about how many artist write their own material? Why shouldnt they get paid for using their voices and talent to make music. The people who write the songs also make money. Should books be free? I mean after all the words in them already existed and someone is just putting them in a certain order to tell a story...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow! That's a great idea :> you're right, I gotta stop thinkin so silly books should be free cuz dem words are not owned by nobody!!! Hence why piracy is so prevelant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the song was free to make then it should be free. I think many artist would say that they sing because they love music and probably would perform for free if there was no market for it, but since there is... why would you turn down being paid to do something you love to do just for fun.
I know, I know :L Still they get paid for talking basically, and they just make it sound pretty. That's not a real job IMO and so that's why people pirate music. Even if everyone stopped pirating music right now there's still so many servers and stuff hosting music it would basically be impossible to not find what song you were looking for.
good point.......because they CAN make millions they jump for it. Many artists specificly those in hip-hop came from poverty so they would do almost anything to make it rich. as 50 cent said..."get rich or die tryin" Personaly I agree with the idea they are "over-payed"
I listen to the radio for free wherever I go. I go to youtube and can hear my favorite musical groups play for free as well. I also went to Napster while it was free and downloaded over 10,000 songs also. I think that if I'm not making any money from the music I download then what I download for free should remain that way. I realize that the groups want money but that should come from the sales of their CD's and touring arrangements as well plus any other items they sell like shirts, hats rings etc.
