Trying to play devil's advocate, it is incredibly diffcult as college students to understand why many fight for the rights of their "intellectual property." We don't have money. We want to get the things we want for as little money as possible. We "borrow" music from our "friends" across the internet. We want less control on sharing of digital files. But, on the opposite spectrum, what if we stood to gain money, no matter how insignificant the amount, from the sale of our intellectual property. The monetary amount doesn't necessarily matter, but the sale of that album, or that book, or anything is an affirmation of the artists creativity. That acceptance cannot have a price label on it, and there cannot be laws protecting that or ethics involving that.
On another note, did you know that a hospital in Britain owns a perpetual copyright of the Peter Pan play?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you Saba. I think that most college aged students do not consider the detrimental impact of their free downloading of copyright music. In seeking to obtain intellectual property for the cheapest amount, they are not concerned with being caught or fined and most times this does not even enter their minds. It is only when someone they know or read about gets fined a substantial amount do they realize that there can be consequences to their actions. I still do not believe that most students find this to be "immoral" or wrong but the only way they will stop is the threat of a fine. In discussing the issues of intellectual property, I have had to re-evaluate my own use of music. How does everyone else feel about the use of music for free?
ReplyDeleteI was actually surprised by some of the opinions expressed in class about music "sharing." While I agree that there may be a more efficient method of musical distribution on the horizon due to file sharing technology, I also think that it is absolutely the right of the copyright owners to exercise any kind of control of their works they deem appropriate. If they want me to pay for the privilege of benefiting from their creativity, should I not have to? If it were my creation, would I not want the same right to profit from it (as SC said above)?
ReplyDeleteI agree Saba's analysis of the situation. Students see open file sharing of music as something given and completely proper. The music most artists create come from years of hard work and dedication to the art they love. If I were to be in the situation of an artist, I would certainly want to be compensated for my hard work. I find it very surprising that tougher legislation hasn't been passed regarding the sharing of music files.
ReplyDeleteIn response to w ashley: I think that the right of the copyright owner to exercise control of his or her creative work is absolutely pivotal. At the same time, I think the way that right is exercised is being forced to change. Technological innovation has reinvented the market for all kinds of media. Clinging to a failing business model will only result in the music industry loosing more and more of its control of the market. One change that might come from this is the elimination of the middle man (record label) between the artist and the consumer. That change might actually give more control to the artists who create the music we're talking about.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Saba's analysis. We find easy ways to excuse downloading music with excuses such as being short on cash as students. In many instances with entertainment, such as movies, there are student discounts. Clearly this can't be enforced or used when buying cds, yet we have access (or did until last week) to programs such as Ruckus, offering free music to university students. However, people still continue to download elsewhere. Part of the issue at hand for students is finding alternative resources such as Ruckus. Hopefully in the near future, these programs will be able to remain financially sound while providing legal music.
ReplyDeleteLucia's comment about reinvented the current business model is awesome. If other factors of the music industry are shifting and if file sharing is becoming more common, then policy, business models and artists alike need to work together to make alterations. We need a model that recognizes the ease of file sharing but also respects the work of the artists. Think about olympians: they dedicate their life to being superior athletes, but we don't pay them a long the way. They don't make a profit every time someone hears their name. However, in the end, they may end up with huge endorsement deals, fame and honor. Similarly, music artists can make the big bucks off endorsements... rather than the poor college student just trying to hear some music.
ReplyDeleteI think it is funny how our generation thinks it is such a pain to PAY for music. Since all music has gone digital and since most labels realize that we have access to download music for free the price of music has actually gone down since we were in elementary and middle school. Think about it. Remember the days when you really liked a song on the radio or MTV and you actually went to the mall or walmart and bought the entire cd to hear that one song that is played over and over for months? For a popular artist this was a twenty dollar investment! Now we have the option to download the single song we like for 99 cents on itunes. This is actually saving us a lot of money compared to five or ten years ago when we drove to the store and bought the entire album. However, since most of us hopped on the illegal bandwagon and installed napster or limewire and downloaded ALL of our music for free, it seems ridiculous to pay 99 cents! This thought just occurred to me while reading your comments...does any one else think this is funny?
ReplyDeleteI think that the discussion around digital file sharing in regard specifically to music is really fascinating. I’m intrigued that the Internet has bucked the former system of major label’s control over pricing and distribution and wonder what impact labels will continue to have over music production in the future. The Radiohead example of course comes to mind, but they were of course only able to successfully release their album on a “pay what you want” model because of the commercial success of their previous records. Plus, the amount of publicity they got from the “free record stunt” was astronomical. Of course I agree that artists should have the right to profit from their creativity and time and effort that amounts to their songs, but I think the people who lose in the age of digital file sharing are the record labels, not the artists. It seems like a model of artists mixing their own tracks in GarageBand and self-publishing on MySpace might make them more able to profit directly from their own music than to sign with a label, who are all notorious for “ripping off” artists, leaving some celebrities to file for bankruptcy at the height of their success (TLC, anyone?). If the result of digital file sharing is to squeeze the record labels out of the industry, then I think it makes things better both for the recording artists and the listeners, who will then have more cash to spend on concert tickets/T-shirts/fan club memberships, whatever, which brings more money to them directly than to the middle men at the labels.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is something our generation is truly at odds with. We ARE the generation that first experienced the benefits from the infamous Napster (and succeeding programs like BearShare, LimeWire, Rtunes, Mytunes, and so forth). How can we, as preteens and young adults, not be tempted to "share" music through these programs if it is something everyone is doing, and free? But also, as Saba explained, we must put ourselves in someone else's shoes and examine how it must feel to take another person's creation without sacrificing money. I was very pleased with our discussion on the subject in class because it is very ethically interesting and debatable question.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is something our generation is truly at odds with. We ARE the generation that first experienced the benefits from the infamous Napster (and succeeding programs like BearShare, LimeWire, Rtunes, Mytunes, and so forth). How can we, as preteens and young adults, not be tempted to "share" music through these programs if it is something everyone is doing, and free? But also, as Saba explained, we must put ourselves in someone else's shoes and examine how it must feel to take another person's creation without sacrificing money. I was very pleased with our discussion on the subject in class because it is very ethically interesting and debatable question.
ReplyDeleteThe ease of the Internet has created a Pandora's box-effect in terms of what has become free and accessible to us. Because of the widespread availability of songs and movies, I believe college students feel almost obligated to receive free material. Considering that we are the first generation, internet regulations will ultimately have to accommodate the wants and demands of later generations. Such compromises may include more artist/celebrity endorsements, cheaper prices for songs, etc. I have little faith in creating enforced policies that would completely eliminate illegal file sharing because someone will always find a way around it as technologies improve.
ReplyDeleteI agree that many college students don't consider the potential costs their illegal downloading actions have for the artist. That artist created their music, put a lot of effort, time, and money into making a good they could market and profit off of, and to think that we have a right to obtain it for free just because we have found ways that we CAN is quite selfish. On the other hand, it is also kind of ridiculous because the artist makes almost nothing (pennies) for every copy of their song that is purchase on iTunes or wherever, so really the amount of money they are being deprived of is so insignificant--where their profits come from is by selling the concert experience of hearing the music live. Still, we aren't entitled to the music for free just because of this.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from someone who has had a personally experience with the downloading laws, I think the entire thing is set up for someone one to lose. A few years ago when I had the access to Napster and to download all this music I didn't understand it could be illegal if it was so easy to do and so many people were doing it. Now after I learned the hard way and was sued for thousands of dollars I don't mess with it. I still don't understand how some people get "caught" and some people don't, but either way they do take it very serious. Back to my first statement when I said its a lose lose situation..my point to that is having it so easily accessible either the artist is going to lose money from the people who are downloading the music or the few that get caught are going to lose money.
ReplyDeleteOur generation will be the first to face such ethical and regulatory issues. Lawsuits and actions taken by the record labels cross into a gray area because there truly was no law set in stone concerning such issues. Similar to the intellectual property and internets cases now in the Supreme Court, there is no standard to base such decisions. Such laws must catch up to the advancement of technology. Likewise, as many others posted we must remember that not only do artists not make a substantial amount of profits from these downloaded files, they can also benefit from file sharing. We've seen many cases of artists gaining popularity through internet mediums and likewise benefiting from subsequent concert ticket sales.
ReplyDeleteI still feel that by sharing music, the artist is in the long term benefiting. Their name is getting out there and they become more popular in society's critical eye, then companies want to sponsor them, TV shows want to feature them, fans want to buy tickets or paraphenalia. If someone was stealing their work and trying to market that on their own, I would not agree with that. But when you load songs onto your friend's ipod, or you burn them a CD, you usually do not ask for payment in return. It is usually because you want to share the good music with them.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting topic, and especially relevant to our generation. Our parents and grandparents and the artists of their day didn't have to face this situation because the technology simply wasn't available. Certainly there were issues similar to it, but never in a way so connected to technology and copyright management.
ReplyDeleteI think rather than just complain about the money they are losing, the music industry should realize that this is a major shift in how people get and share music and they should find a better way to monetize it. Same thing with movies and tv shows. There have to be ways to monetize this, they just need to think beyond their current system because as it is now, I really don't think people will just completely stop sharing music, movies, etc just because they feel bad that artists aren't making money.