|
Forum: The Classroom Topic: Should music be free? started by: Bozeman Posted by Bozeman 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.
Posted by Happyfish 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?
Posted by DuSTman on Aug. 05 2000,22:44
Well.. I'm allowed to sing stuff to you guys arn't I? I can sing someone else's tune to you? No problem..Ownership is quite an abstract concept really, and becomes even moreso when talking about immaterial things, such as ideas and music. Myself I don't think in terms of "should" except when specifically thinking about a strategy.. Posted by ShallowBlue 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.
Posted by Ozymandias on Aug. 06 2000,00:51
I have no problem with artists wanting to make money off of their work, but when they start getting greedy, and suing anything that could be seen as a potential threat (regardless of whether or not it's an actual threat, or even helps them), there's a fucking problem.------------------ Posted by Sithiee 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 - 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. Posted by Ozymandias on Aug. 06 2000,02:23
True, but really, if any bands ARE going kaput, (or WERE, since I don't really see that happening,) it sure isn't because of Napster.------------------ Posted by Sithiee 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.
Posted by nobody 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 |