I think it depends on the artist's personal preference, not the record company. If the artist wants their music to be easily and readily accessible, then their music should be easily accessible. The same should be true if the artist wants their music to be exclusively purchased. See, this is the thing: no one put a gun to that artist's head and forced them to sign a contract with a record company. If they really wanted their music to be easily and readily accessible on the internet, it would be available for free, legally.
Of course, if they were like the latter, then I wouldn't think they'd be worth a second listen. But there ARE artists like that, and when you download their music without paying for it you are telling the record companies that they ARE worth a second listen.
If people downloaded only free songs and did not purchase CDs that were not worth it to them, the recording industry would not be able to point at lost dollars. As long as people download music "illegally", which I guess means the same thing as illegally, because it IS illegal to violate a copyright law, whether you think of it as fair or not, the record companies can say "that is money we should have had" and they are correct. If no one were buying or listening to the music, they would be forced to lower CD prices until it was worth it to consumers to purchase.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-01-14 03:53 pm (UTC)See, this is the thing: no one put a gun to that artist's head and forced them to sign a contract with a record company. If they really wanted their music to be easily and readily accessible on the internet, it would be available for free, legally.
Of course, if they were like the latter, then I wouldn't think they'd be worth a second listen.
But there ARE artists like that, and when you download their music without paying for it you are telling the record companies that they ARE worth a second listen.
If people downloaded only free songs and did not purchase CDs that were not worth it to them, the recording industry would not be able to point at lost dollars. As long as people download music "illegally", which I guess means the same thing as illegally, because it IS illegal to violate a copyright law, whether you think of it as fair or not, the record companies can say "that is money we should have had" and they are correct.
If no one were buying or listening to the music, they would be forced to lower CD prices until it was worth it to consumers to purchase.
Rhowan//Ravenclaw