Music these days is a rip off (Napster - Should Music Be Free To Share?)

Member Name: strange_child

Product:	Napster - Should Music Be Free To Share?
Date:	27/03/02 (46 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: cds are too expensive

Disadvantages: can rip off smaller bands

Since Napster is no longer, this opinion is about the sharing of music files in general. I joined Napster at the tail end, a few months before it was shut down. At that point in time, I wasn't interested in downloading whole albums - I would just download a few songs from an album as a taster before I bought it. Now I have Kazaa, which is so much better than Napster -the files don't fail to download, and they can pick up when you next log in. I have found this useful in downloading whole albums, and so far I have downloaded albums by Mudvayne, Backyard Babies, Boy Hits Car, Pennywise, Incubus and Ill Nino.

However, there is the argument that this is wrong - that by doing so we are ripping off the artists and in effect stealing from them. While I am against downloading albums from small, struggling bands, because I feel that they will lack the recognition from it, I have a few pointers to make so that I can justify my right to download music.

I would count myself as a music fan, I like to discover new bands and some groups that I like aren't famous, but I like to have access to music. The average music fan of the music that I like - alternative and rock - is in their teens of twenties. However, it is not uncommon for me to go into record shops and see the CD that I want to buy on sale for sixteen of seventeen pounds, and to be honest, I am not going to pay that for about twelve tracks. There are other things that we need to spend our money on - when I go off to university this year money will be short but I don't intend on missing out on music. The bands most likely don't see half of the money that you spend on their CDs - it is the expense of the packaging, the record label charges and then commission for the shop. When I download an album, I probably download about eight pounds worth, so in effect I am not taking as much as labels will have you believe.

Bands such as Metallica have earned a huge amount of money in t
he past years - not just from the music, but other things like merchandise, which they haven't produced themselves. Millionaires and famous successful bands surely can let a few pounds go - after all, they have what they want, whereas us, the poor public have to buy our own food and houses. Think of the amount of money they get just from appearing on television, and all the freebies they 'earn'. Now think - is that really fair, just because they're 'famous' If I go to a gig and I like the band then I will often buy their album or anything else going, and this genuinely benefits the struggling bands - besides, I doubt I can get Five Knuckle or Jesse James downloads on the net!

In the past people have taped their friends albums in order to expand their record collections, and although this isn't strictly legal, it is recognised that people do this and that It can't really be enforced. An excellent suggestion of my dad's was that if certain bands or labels were so uptight about sharing music, then couldn't they join forces with people who sell recordable CDs and tapes and then at least they will get a bit of a profit.

There is also the point that a vast amount of people will download a few tracks off of an album so that they know whether to buy it or not. If I hadn't done it then I would have never have bought the Dandy Warhol's album, so you can see that it really does benefit certain bands.

So I can see the arguments against sharing music, but I don't think that anyone can control it. It has always gone on, since the invention of recorded music, except now it's more obvious. I don't think many artists are missing out on money, after all many of them claim that they are only in it for the music, don't they?! (I really don't believe that in most cases anyway).

Summary: