Why Music should be free

[Mageslayer]

There's one I didn't think of! You could go into all of the other ways musicians make money, such as tours, merchandise, advertisements, etc., and prove that if music were all changed over to digital distributions and made free, the only ones really hurt are the corporations. Looks like I spoke too soon on the hopelessness of this topic, I bet you could make a controversial speech and shut everyone up (much like my "Drugs should be legalized to prevent unnecessary deaths" would have been had I actually cared about that class...).

[EnterTheHatrix]

The artist only gets a fraction of what the label gives them, not a fraction of how many are sold. Same applies for movies.. Actors get a set amount, unless you're Tom Cruise and take a percentage of the movies takings.

[Harshboy]

Thanks a lot for all of the opinions. Feel free to post more

[CronoTriggerfan]

Well, although I believe that we SHOULD pay for music, a good point in your side's defense would be why music should be free for consumers instead of music in general. You could propose a solution like what the Zune did; M$ actually paid record companies at the release of the device because they knew it was going to be used to pirate music. I first learned about it in Leo Laporte's Zune video review, you can probably dig up plenty of additional information from there.

CTFan

[benheck]

There is free music, it's called the radio.

[Rototiller]

Say during the speech,"If you don't support free music, then my dark minions shall be forced to eat your SOOUUULLL!!!!"

[Harshboy]

Yes, i have included info on the radio. See, I'm trying to point out that you choose the music you listen to, not be forced to listen to a song. I said something technical about how radios and internet are different. Its hard to explain. All I have for reasons so far is:

First of all, The History of music, which is considered a form of art, goes back thousands of years ago. I’m sure many of you like to view pictures on the internet, from sites such as Devientart or maybe even Google. The point is you can view these images for free. So if you can view pictures for free, why can’t I download and listen to music for free? Some of you might say that I could simply listen to a radio. On the radio you don’t get to pick what song you want listen to, you are just simply “Forcedâ€

[Rototiller]

[quote="Harshboy"]

First of all, The History of music, which is considered a form of art, goes back thousands of years ago when Trogdor the Burninator smited a noble warrior and his bones made a musical sound. I’m sure many of you like to view pictures on the internet, from sites such as Deviantart(evil) or maybe even Google(the nectar of the gods.) The point is you can view these images for free. So if you can view pictures for free, why can’t I download and listen to music for free? Some of you might say that I could simply listen to a radio. On the radio you don’t get to pick what song you want listen to, you are just simply “Forcedâ€

[Sir Games-A-Lot]

Technically all music is meant to be free, it is meant to eventually enter the public domain where it becomes society's property. It just so happens that interested parties in the fields of audio and video reproduction have used their influence and funds to ensure that this takes an very long time. As Jack Valenti is reported to have proposed, copyright should be "forever less one day."

IMHO one could even argue that recorded music is infact less entitled to copyright protection than written works or images, since it is strictly machine readable, thus lessening it's potential lifespan of relevance. Anyone with the necessary knowledge can read a book, anyone even without any specific knowlage above the norm can look at an image and take something away from it, no one without a player can read magnetic tape. No one without knowlage of the tape's purpose can construct a player. Books from thousands of years ago can still be read today, will anyone be able listen to a tape or CD in 2000 years? Probably not, for one thing their level of complexity means that signific portions of the information they contain is lost as they break down. Also, if they are not explicity labled can any one discern their purpose?

So one could say that it is actually very beneficially to ensure that recorded music enters the public domain as early as possible, alowing it to be freely copied, and constantly updated into a relevant format.

My opinion? A music recording should be protected for 45 years after it's creation, the artist should be able to apply for one 15 year extention, if he/she can prove that the work still represents a significant portion of his/her livelyhood. After that it goes public for the benefit of society as a whole, and it's own preservation.

[Sparkfist]

I can't say that music should be free, that would kill the market. Me I'm more for a fair value on the cost of music. I don't believe that a CD should cost more then $10 at the most, and even then I'm more for $5 a disc. With the price for making a CD, including such online music stores like iTunes and Napster, the price is at most 1-2 dollars. That's including price of packing and shipping of the product.

When you total up the money needed to produce music, which is now more like a couple thousand at most, you can do studio quality audio on a G4 for crying out loud. Then take into account the royalties earned from being played on the radio, CD sales (profit) and oh yeah the sales made on concerts (this includes ticket sales and shirts). The money lost by lowering the CD sales price is negligible.

[Harshboy]

Ok, I think i got enough information. Here is what i wrote:

Two groups of people, the Lawyers and the College students. You must be thinking of why these two would ever meet. It’s not because someone spiked the punch, but rather these 400 students are being sued for Music sharing. Like many of these students, I’m sure many of you have copied a CD or two for your friends, maybe even downloaded some songs. Well, in some countries this is illegal. In the US it is technically illegal to do such things as copy a CD or download your favorite songs. But recently in the past few years, many groups and people just like you have banded together and are demanding that all music should be free to download. I am a supporter to being able to get your favorite tunes for free. I will support my beliefs with the history of music, why music is meant to be free, and some artists and countries who believe that music downloading is okay. Now then, lets get started shall we?

First of all, The History of music, which is considered a form of art, goes back thousands of years ago. I’m sure many of you like to view pictures on the internet, from sites such as Devientart or maybe even Google. The point is you can view these images for free. So if you can view pictures for free, why can’t I download and listen to music for free? Some of you might say that I could simply listen to a radio. On the radio you don’t get to pick what song you want listen to, you are just simply “Forcedâ€

[gamemasterAS]

Seems a wii bit long, But if it's for school I figure thats the point.

[Harshboy]

Believe me, if it wasnt for school:

a) I wouldnt bother write it
b) It would be like 3 sentances

[Gamelver]

Well, no offense, but it wasn't that well written....out of curiosity, what grade are you in?

Also, some of your arguments aren't that great....like Microsoft paying the record companies as reparations for illegally downloaded songs....basically, that's saying that companies with money should buy our songs for us.

Still, some of the good points about why music should be free were brought up, like if the CD is older than a set amount of years then its songs (if they're not being recorded on any other CDs) should be available for download, though I don't see how the way CD/tapes are played has any importance/relevance.

[blackbox_dev]

Well, no offense, but it wasn't that well written....out of curiosity, what grade are you in?

I think he said he was 14 in the age thread... So that would be Grade 8/9.