Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing out the falacy in your argument by doing it yourself.
We were talking about CDs and MP3s, not the abstract concept of music. You're welcome to enjoy music the old fashioned way. Free CDs, not so much.
It does matter what form the CD's are in, though.
And yes, I do enjoy old-fashioned music. But I also enjoy the music I get from *ahem* sources. Someone pays for it. (I don't mean the companies.)
Anyway, your alignment seems to be unclear.
Recorded music is relatively recent phenomenon. Up until the late 19th century, it simply didn't exist. Maybe a little earlier, if you want to argue player pianos. Call it 150 years, to be generous. Music, however, pre-dates human history. 5000+ years. We had music before we had a recording industry. If the recording industry goes the way of the dinosaurs, we will still have music. I imagine this must be pretty scary if one happens to work in the recording industry. Sorry. To use the standard quotation...
In Life-Line, Robert A. Heinlein wrote: There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
This shows slight alignment to the other side, although ambiguous. And with piracy as prevalent as it is, it will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs, allowing indie bands to evolve and continue the cycle.
I believe this because it is fundamental to how our notions of trade work, but more importantly, because I believe we should respect the wishes of the creators of a work of art. If they do not wish me to listen to their music, then I should honor that, and not listen to it. It is the respectful, proper, honorable thing to do.
But they do want you to listen to their music -- for a fee. Of course, it's like if someone brings a recording device to a concert and then posts the recordings on the Internet. You didn't steal anything.
If I do not like the "something" they are selling, then the correct course of action is for me to not buy it. If I believe I "need" their "something" (for whatever definition of "need" you wish), then it is my obligation to pay the price they are asking.
The problem with this model is that you don't take into account other sources of the same product. i.e. it only works if they are the only possessors of the product.) If you don't want to buy it, but someone else is offering it to you for free, then most people would go for the second choice. Of course, as soon as the second source is sued by the first and is promptly taken down, then you're back to the first model. And of course it's the right one, when the conditions match.
mikefrank wrote:Instead, why not just listen to Indie bands that are happy to just give their stuff away for free online to get exposure? There is plenty of good stuff out there that you can listen to free, and legally.
Doing this is a stronger statement of principles than simply stealing commercial music - if you just boycott it instead, then you aren't participating at all in the dissemination of the music of bands that participate in the system you dislike.
Besides, the fact is, having one's own portable library of popular commercial music or movies is, frankly, not a necessity in life, it is a completely unnecessary luxury, and is certainly not worth breaking the law or compromising one's principles for.
Problem is, a boycott only works if everyone does it. And there will always be the few people who buy it anyway. The recording industry will start kissing up to those people.
Schupo wrote:At this point in time, music is being created often with the sole purpose of being recorded and sold. Take away the recordings, take away the ease of distribution, and you lose a serious amount of music. So long, Beatles.
That music is better off going bye-bye. If you're not creating music for the purpose of creating something to send to the public to communicate a message or something, and only for the purpose of making money, you have the condition of 90% of music created today by the big boys.
That type of music, if I ever come across it on BitTorrent, I'll probably delete within 24 minutes of listening, if not 24 seconds.
It's not that recorded music is the root of all evil related to DRM, but if you're just going to create music because it's so easy to mass-distribute, then you should think twice about a musical career.