Music Club Activity #1

[laynie.livejournal.com]

Hey Music Club Members! It's time to have a discussion/debate. It's no secret that in the past 5 or 6 years, the music industry has experienced a sharp downturn, mostly due to peer-to-peer file sharing programs such as Napster. The music industry's largest target market (teens and young adults) have turned to the internet for their music needs, where songs can be downloaded for free. After numerous lawsuits, programs such as ITunes have popped up...where songs can be purchased for a small fee. However, illegal music downloading still continues.

So here's the question: Do you think it's wrong to illegally download music, and why? Do you download any music, legally (ex. ITunes), or illegally (ex. peer-to-peer filesharing programs)?

Note: Everyone's opinions WILL be respected here. And there are good points to be made for both sides of this issue.

Brooke / Gryffindor

Comments

[memyselfandi87.livejournal.com]

It depends on the situation. I do both, whether you define it as "illegal" or not. I have downloaded music "illegally," as in downloading a song or album or two from sites such as yousendit simply because it's convenient. I haven't gotten in trouble yet for it, and I don't plan to stop anytime soon.

With that said, however, I still have iTunes, and I do buy giftcards for myself so I can load up my account with money so I can buy music as well.

Anyway, my point is, I do not think it's wrong to "illegally" download music. 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. Of course, if they were like the latter, then I wouldn't think they'd be worth a second listen. :)

Kristina//Hufflepuff

[2weeks3days.livejournal.com]

I agree, it should be what the artist prefers. One of my favorite bands, Radiohead, would much rather their music getting around than their record company, Capital Records, computer-locking their CDs so no one can listen to them on their ipods.

Karina, Slytherin

[rhowan-jane.livejournal.com]

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.

Rhowan//Ravenclaw