|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Bozeman 
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Aug. 05 2000,18:14 |
|
   |
Music, should it be distributed freely? On the one hand are those who claim that the music is the artist's "work" and "creation" and they have every right to profit from said creation. This is a very valid point. On the other hand are those who say that current artists have abused their copyrights, that the music industry is corrupt, and that music is art, and therefore belongs to everyone who wishes to appreciate it. This is also very valid. I belive that this moral question must be answered before any action can be taken against Napster, or the RIAA. Please post your opinions here, and please cite as many relevant pages as possible, so that readers can get information firsthand.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Happyfish
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 05 2000,20:15 |
|
 |
Just consider that 'artists' never really made money form their music until the past century. Maybe it'll revert back to that?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
ShallowBlue
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 06 2000,00:46 |
|
|
Well since you call them artists then saying that music is art should be a safe assumption. Therefore I think the solution to your dilemma lies in comparing it to other art forms. Paintings for example. A person can "own" a painting, and any number of people can "own" reproductions of said painting. I think it's ultimately up to the individual artist how their work will be distributed.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Sithiee
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 06 2000,01:14 |
|
|
well i personally think it should be up to the artist, their work, their choice. but about them getting greedy, i think maybe theyre seeing other artists go down, and are probably frightened by that...example: Looking Glass Studios -
Looking Glass has been around since the early 90's and every game theyve made has gone on to receive much praise and approval. there were no exceptions. now, you would think with so many people loving their games (or their art as this case would be) that theyd make plenty of money off said games and they wouldnt have a care in the world. but no. looking glass went under, because they had no money. the very strange thing about this, is they had only just released their newest game thief 2, which received lots and lots of praise. but yet sales still dwindled. i dont know about you, but if everyone loved this game, and so very many people had a copy, how could this incredible team still go under? all signs say to me that it was far too pirated a game. now im sure you can all draw your own conclusions, but if i was an artist of any sort, and i saw someone (or group) as mainstream as looking glass (the people who brought you system shock and theif, and the very concept of first person sneakers) go down, id re-evaluate whether or not to protect my work with the same vigor of say, metallica. not a sermon, just a thought.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Sithiee
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 06 2000,21:00 |
|
|
well i dont know of any i can point out, but like i said in some other thread, just cause you dont see it, doesnt mean its not happening. im sure someone big in the field is much more likely to notice than you or i. but i again, i dunno.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
nobody
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: Jul. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 09 2000,15:36 |
|
|
Now, this is a truly interesting question. To begin, I don't think that it's a question of rights but rather one of respect. I consider music a form of art, and therefore think that it is best for everyone if it's available to as many people as possible. Having said that, I DO think that artists should be compensated fairly for their work, not simply as an incentive for them to continue doing it, but as a means to allow them to continue doing what they love. (Note: Pretend that there are no bands that are just in it for the money/fame/etc. Assume all bands really are just trying to express themselves, have fun, and/or create "art" rather than a "product") Bands need compensation for their work so that they can support themselves. If you like the band, buy their CD, go to their shows, buy the t-shirt, etc., so that they don't have to have day jobs to pay the rent, and can therefore focus their time on what's imortant: the music. Basically what I am trying to say is that if you hear the band's music, and you like it, you should support them by buying their merchandise. If the music sucks, then the band won't get much money, but that's because their talents don't warrant it. On the other hand, if the music is good, then you want the artist to be able to write more, so you should support them. Sorry if that was totally incoherent or something... I hope I made some sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
