Sharing and downloading of files should not be illegal

[jesse]

it seems like the downloading and sharing of files on the internet, you know intellectual property, loss of revenue and all that is well, wrong.
But it's such an efficient and effective system, (aside from being an insurmountable task), The goverment just can't rid this 'crime'.
It brings about popularity for music artistes and others too.?

[McCulloch]

Do you believe that performers, artists, writers should be paid for their work or should they work for free?

[jesse]

since they get revenue from being popular at all, then they wouldn't be working for free?

[McCulloch]

since they get revenue from being popular at all, then they wouldn't be working for free?

I'm not sure how that works. Let's assume that I record a song. I pay the studio and the backup musicians. I spend time getting the song just right. I hire someone to distribute it, a download site, cut CDs whatever. The CDs are sold at cost and the downloads are free. Just how did I get any revenue? Where did it materialize from?

[Goat]

since they get revenue from being popular at all, then they wouldn't be working for free?

I'm not sure how that works. Let's assume that I record a song. I pay the studio and the backup musicians. I spend time getting the song just right. I hire someone to distribute it, a download site, cut CDs whatever. The CDs are sold at cost and the downloads are free. Just how did I get any revenue? Where did it materialize from?

Shows.. live shows. The better the CD does, the more demand you have for live shows, and the higher the price you can get paid for performances.

[McCulloch]

Shows.. live shows. The better the CD does, the more demand you have for live shows, and the higher the price you can get paid for performances.

So you believe that artists and musicians must get their revenue only from touring and that anyone should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their work without cost, except at live shows. How many actual musicians agree with you? Authors and writers? Painters and photographers? Actors and directors? Dancers? Athletes?

[Goat]

Shows.. live shows. The better the CD does, the more demand you have for live shows, and the higher the price you can get paid for performances.

So you believe that artists and musicians must get their revenue only from touring and that anyone should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their work without cost, except at live shows. How many actual musicians agree with you? Authors and writers? Painters and photographers? Actors and directors? Dancers? Athletes?

When it comes to professional musicians, that is how must of them are making their money now. The CD pretty much are at cost, and many artists get virtually nothing from their sales. While I do think that artists should be paid for their work, that is the reality of todays environment.

[Dionysus]

By and large, musicians make the bulk of their income from live performances anyway. I know a fellow signed to a small label who complains that he makes approximately twenty cents off of every record sold (at an average price of something like fifteen dollars); it is apparently worse yet for artists signed to major labels. In downloading, one deprives, not the artist, but the distribution company and the record label of profits - and that's not something I'm especially concerned about.

[Negachrist]

The people who lose out the most from illegal downloading of songs are the money-grabbing record companies.

Well boo-f***ing-hoo!

[General Kang]

The people who lose out the most from illegal downloading of songs are the money-grabbing record companies.

Well boo-f***ing-hoo!

While I agree that it is primarily record companies that suffer in the short run from illegal downloading, the vast bulk of the music economy over the years has been built upon album sales.

There was some concern when FM radio began to play popular music that it would end the record industry, but of course it adapted... and adapted again to MTV... both, it seems, only encouraged people who liked what they heard to go out and buy the album.

But file sharing ends that - if legalized, only a handful of people would need to buy the album and EVERYONE could have it for free. Ah, sure, equal access and all that, breaking the backs of the greedy music producers and record companies, etc... but the entire music industry was built for the purpose of selling records - take away that profit motive entirely and you need to ask - will there be anything but local and garage bands left out there?

I don't know... maybe that is where you are hoping music ends up going - but there was a time when a new album by a prominent artist was something that got attention, brought people together. I suppose you could say that file sharing does the same thing... but it certainly does it in a different way.

Regardless, I tend to agree with the intellectual property argument - artists who want to put their music on the web for free should be free to do so - but artists who want to actually GET RICH with their music should also be free to do so... you as a purchaser of a music CD have no right to distribute their music unless they want to let you... take the record companies out of it and get to the artist level... if the artist lets you, so be it - if they don't, then no dice.