I believe that music has inherent value. I think that music compositions, sound recordings, and music in any other accessible medium are works of art, much like a painting or a novel. I don't think this value is based on the popularity of the piece, so much as on the work and inspiration that went into its creation. Probably that biggest discrepancy with this line of thinking would be to compare the inherent value of music to a painting; and unfortunately most of the time paintings are given value based on the artist and the popularity of the work. However, inherent value means a worth that is not assigned by a market or buyers, but merit and importance based on pretexts by which the piece was created.
A big problem that arises today with widespread technology and the availability of music online is the illegal distribution and downloading of music without paying. This of course is illegal because you are taking something without paying for it, but even more so, it makes you wonder, at which point does an artist's ownership of a piece of music reach its limit? I think that as soon as someone composes a piece of music, it belongs to that person exclusively. However, in today's world, music can be a profession, and musical compositions are market goods. Unfortunately, not every songwriter is able to make money and gain acclaim from recording a song and keeping the rights but getting paid a fraction of a radio station's or company's profit from the song. Therefore many artists choose to sell the 'rights' to their piece to a recording label or company to get immediate money for the song. At this point, various controversies arise. I would argue that if you have technically sold the song, the rights for distribution no longer belong to you. Still, this does NOT mean that an artist does not deserve recognition. I think that an artist still should own the copyright to the song, even if the rights have been sold. All this controversy is precisely why I would advocate for keeping the rights to a song if possible.
Even if all this controversy was settled, I do not think that the downloading of music would stop. It has been made too easy with today's technology, and music has become a vital part of life for many people. I don't think it's okay per se to download music illegally, and I believe that certainly people have NO RIGHT to do so. Nevertheless, for some reason, even though stealing is stealing, downloading music doesn't feel as bad as stealing from a supermarket or clothing boutique. I myself download music pretty regularly, and yet my morals don't kick in like they would if I were to, for example, rob a store. So this raises the question, why? Are songwriters under appreciated? Is music undervalued? I don't think so. I think the answer lies in a very simple revelation. Music used to be a cultural treat for the upper class. But nowadays music has become one of the few cultural phenomenons that is accessible to people with any amount of wealth, across the social ladder. I think this is a wonderful thing, but leads to people constantly finding new ways to get their hands on free music.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/89142790@N00/48940647
Found on flickrcc.net
A big problem that arises today with widespread technology and the availability of music online is the illegal distribution and downloading of music without paying. This of course is illegal because you are taking something without paying for it, but even more so, it makes you wonder, at which point does an artist's ownership of a piece of music reach its limit? I think that as soon as someone composes a piece of music, it belongs to that person exclusively. However, in today's world, music can be a profession, and musical compositions are market goods. Unfortunately, not every songwriter is able to make money and gain acclaim from recording a song and keeping the rights but getting paid a fraction of a radio station's or company's profit from the song. Therefore many artists choose to sell the 'rights' to their piece to a recording label or company to get immediate money for the song. At this point, various controversies arise. I would argue that if you have technically sold the song, the rights for distribution no longer belong to you. Still, this does NOT mean that an artist does not deserve recognition. I think that an artist still should own the copyright to the song, even if the rights have been sold. All this controversy is precisely why I would advocate for keeping the rights to a song if possible.
Even if all this controversy was settled, I do not think that the downloading of music would stop. It has been made too easy with today's technology, and music has become a vital part of life for many people. I don't think it's okay per se to download music illegally, and I believe that certainly people have NO RIGHT to do so. Nevertheless, for some reason, even though stealing is stealing, downloading music doesn't feel as bad as stealing from a supermarket or clothing boutique. I myself download music pretty regularly, and yet my morals don't kick in like they would if I were to, for example, rob a store. So this raises the question, why? Are songwriters under appreciated? Is music undervalued? I don't think so. I think the answer lies in a very simple revelation. Music used to be a cultural treat for the upper class. But nowadays music has become one of the few cultural phenomenons that is accessible to people with any amount of wealth, across the social ladder. I think this is a wonderful thing, but leads to people constantly finding new ways to get their hands on free music.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/89142790@N00/48940647
Found on flickrcc.net
6 comments:
I totally agree that music shouldn't be free. I like what you said about the spread of music through social classes. I never thought about music that way before, but I think it is completely spot on.
I agree with you I think that music shouldn't be free and I think you had some very interesting points
I like how you described music as a work of art. I agree with that statement, but never really thought of it that way before. I also agree with you that taking free music offline is not okay. I really liked your point about music being so widely accessible to everyone regardless of class or location.
I think it's really interesting how you brought up the fact that music used to be for the upper class and is now more widespread (it really puts things in perspective). Also, I somewhat agree with your argument that even though illegally downloading music is immoral, it's not as bad as robbing a store.
I agree with most of your points, but BECAUSE music is a cultural treat, like you said, I think music should be listened to more, which is will happen if people download music for free.
You bring up a lot of interesting points in your piece! I think it's interesting that you brought up the point of conscientiousness kicking in when you steal from a store as opposed to online. I also like how you made the point that music used to be a thing of high class and now everyone has access to it. I agree with you about the artist needing to be recognized even the work has been sold. I disagree with you in your comparison to the value of paintings because I think many people determine the value of music in a similar way. I think your article is really well written, and thought-provoking in the way that you bring up realistic points that are not only spot-on as Seb@stian said, but also things we don't really think about usually.
Post a Comment