|
I don't See why Convenience is an Excuse for Theft |
Before I say anything else, I will go ahead and say that, yes, I also believe that the RIAA is a satanic orginization run by a masonic conspiracy to bring the Illuminati to world domination. But that doesn't give you the right to steal from them. I know that technically, it's copyright infringement, and therefore not theft, but in the end it's essentially the same.
Let's face it, most file-sharing is illegal, at least according to the Digital Millenium Act of 1998.File sharers have come up with all sorts of excuses about why they are somehow not morally obligated to follow the law. I'll address a few:
This is not true. In fact, it's a lie based on some misinformation released four years ago that said that file sharers were more likely to buy CDs than people who did not file-share. Of course they are; music fans are going to buy music-- they just haven't bought nearly as much as they used to, and sales have suffered. Sure, a few artists are still selling double-platinum albums, but it's a select few. The industry is not doing well, and this means that they are not going to take risks to add new blood to the market-- they are going to continue to crank out what is safe to sell, the things that have given them profits in the past.
It's illegal to buy pot, but that's pretty easy to get your hands on, too.
Televisions are legal, but it's illegal to watch kiddie porn on them.
This is where it gets hazy. There are people, such as myself, who have perfectly legal .mp3s on their computer, and who want to share them legally. Some bands/labels allow taping of live shows (for a list of taper-friendly bands, click here), and there's a major underground movement to distribute the legal recordings. For files such as these (live files are not as high in quality as studio), distribution is a great way for a band to get their music out into the world.
However, everyone involved in this debate knows that a majority of downloaders are not going for the latest live recording of an indie band, they're looking for Ludacris or some other mainstream act under a label that does not permit distribution of music except through the sales of CDs.
I agree, I don't think that you should have to buy a CD that sucks for the right to listen to one single, but the law stands. Or even better, just buy the single.
Yeah, and?.. Since executives aren't raking in the green that they used to, they aren't signing as many new artists or hiring talented producers. Hence, music is going to go stagnant. I'll let you in on a little secret. A record on a major label has to go double-platinum before a band starts to make any profits. So sure, you are ripping some executives royally, but by not buying CDs, you're ripping your favorite major label band even more.
And trust me, they do care.
Look at it this way: would you go to a bookstore and, instead of buying a new bestseller, cut out your favorite chapter, and then allow all of your friends to copy that? No.
If you're unhappy with the state-- and price-- of music today, stop listening to the crap that is released by the mainstream (and for the sake of everyone involved, stop stealing it-- you could be sued over it now), and support independent artists who are worth hearing. Keep your P2P programs, but use them for legal downloads.
Geeze. Stop Being Cheap.