Though this is a 2003/Napster era topic. I still hear whispers of this RIAA infused argument that downloading is stealing and the only way to support an artist is to go and buy their albums. "Downloading is the equivalent of shoplifting", they say, and artists careers depend on CD sales. As an artist, I say "illegally download" away.
It seems counter intuitive to see an artist arguing for illegal downloading, but for all intents and purposes, illegal downloading doesn't necessarily affect me or most mainstream artists for that matter. When you look into the details of those contracts these artists sign with major labels, you realize that lavish lifestyle you see on MTV isn't all what it seems. Most of the money an artist gets upfront for signing a contract is expected to be paid back through album sales. So if you
see a headline that says, "Young "Such and Such" is getting paid $500,000 to record for Universal music", know that he now owes them $500,000 and won't see a penny of album sales money until that's paid back.
Not only that, but its not uncommon for an artist to receive less then 10% of money paid for the sale of any album. So when you paid $12 at best buy to support your favorite artist, he really only got less then a $1.20 for your trouble. Throw in all the recording fees, promotion fees, producer fees that you thought recording labels paid for and you find out that its not uncommon for major artists to owe their own label for the sale of their own album.
So my First point is.... when you buy an album who are you supporting the artist or the multi billion dollar corporation?
Point #2. The RIAA doesn't miss an opportunity to point out that downloading music for free is against the law. The context they often say it in, implies that it is therefore wrong to download music. But we all know we can't trust are politicians. Not every law they write is based on right and wrong. We all know that a lot of laws, especially ones dealing with corporations, are shady laws to begin with. So just because an act is unlawful doesn't necessarily mean its morally wrong. For instance, going 5 miles over the speed limit is unlawful but is it morally wrong? Are you doing someone an injustice directly by speeding?
Also many copyright laws are based on laws over 100 years old. Many of the laws that apply to file sharing are based on rulings from judges in the 70s,80s, and 90s. Nobody could have had the foresight to write laws involving digital media. This is a case of technology being ahead of the law. If I was driving one of the first cars invented at the beginning of the 20th century, in the city going 50 mph am I speeding with no licence, seatbelt, registration, or car insurance or am I just ahead of my time? So are illegal downloaders committing shoplifting or are they using a technology that is speeding ahead of lawmakers imagination?
Point #3 CDS are Outdated. In the late 90s I was watching Aladdin on VHS and listening to Will Smith on CD. In the early millenium, I was watching The Matrix on DVD and listening to Lil Jon on CD. Now I can watch Avatar on Blu Ray on 3d HD tv but I still have to listen to Blueprint 3 by Jay-Z ON CD. How can an industry depend on such an OUTDATED product? The movie industry has changed its medium 3 times since I've been alive and yet I still listen to CDs. Its insanity
Final Point. Music has always been a service. You pay a painter to paint you a portrait. You pay a band to play at your wedding. Human beings have been doing that since before the bible. Yet in the 20th Century, businessmen wanted to turn a service into a product. And now that things have come full circle they want to complain that no one is buying their product.
Please come support our services. Pay to see our shows. If you like our product by all means buy it. If you are out of state, or cant come to shows, or cant afford it, or don't value our services, buy all means buy our product. But I'm not going to guilt trip you into buying our product. But please support this starving artist and all his expenses and please support his services not doing so is just wrong and you know it!... COME TO OUR SHOWS!
In the meantime "illegally" download my mixtape here at http://limelinx.com/files/86de464d6b4935b1d3083562175217f8 ..... and "illegally" download my group's mixtape when it comes April 28th
Well stated. If I was an artist I would encourage the people to download and share my music as well. Internet downloading serves to market and promote my product just as effectively if not more so than traditional radio.
ReplyDeleteDo your thing young man, do your thing.
i agree that this is well stated. I wish I had a boyfriend as smart and articulate as you are Chris Hale. Also, i agree with everything you have stated. The argument is so well written that I can't even produce a counter argument. However, it seems as if you are telling persons so much about the music industry that you are neglecting the artist. It seems as if you have forgotten the artist, although the label is profiting the most, people should still consider the artist before illegally downloading their music. I hear persons defend some artist to no end however, they would rather spend there money on other things than buy an album or for those who also feel cd's are outdated download it on itunes or other cites in which artist still get a pinch of the profits!
ReplyDeleteThats my point Britt. Artists recieve so little of the royalties from album sales that by buying the album you are not actually supporting them. You are supporting labels. Also I've read that artists have complained that they get LESS from digital downloads then physically buying it. So your actually hurting the artist by buying a download. But overall an artist will get more money physically in his pocket if you go out to his show. Buying his album doeos LITTLE for his bottom line
ReplyDeleteok baby i understand! thanx. fyi...you are my man and im so glad that you are yay!
ReplyDelete