+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
People get music for free - detrimental to artists?
Log In to post a reply
40 messages
View: flat \ threaded

Stereo Mouse
Stereo Mouse
635 posts

Re: Thats a silly question

Cheeso wrote:
Of course its detrimental to artists.

It's theft. Period.

No amount of silly arguments about someone collecting sports cars or airplanes makes it less than theft. Thats what it is.

Don't ge me wrong, I'm not making a moral judgement. I download stuff myself, all the time. But its theft, and I know it.

And why should artists give away their work for free? The ultimate goal of art is not for others to enjoy it. The ultimate goal of art is self-expression. You don't work for free, why should anyone else? People put their time and effort into creating music, they should be rewarded.

Good points. Except that I'd still defend the very concept of file sharing, because at its best it does build a sort of a micro-level gift economy, where the users can share the music between each other because audio files aren't zero-sum, like records or tapes, but instead, can be copied to another computer. Of course, reckless parasitism regarding official records isn't really the way to go, but such a gift economy concept has been wonderful in areas such as live recordings (or loosely called "bootlegs"), an area that many recording artists tolerate.

I haven't bought any digital files as a music format yet. I still prefer physical formats. Because physical format is zero-sum, and thus it is justified to ask money for it. Files can be copied easily so if someone downloads your files you won't lose the files. Thus it's not zero sum and one wonders whether or not there is any point in making music available for paid download.

Oct 10, 2008, 07:08


Topic Outline: