Open Mic – Is This Bullshit?

One day, you could be downloading some of the hottest songs off the Internet to make a ‘Party Mix’ CD. The next day, there could be a lawyer knocking at your door with a subpoena for you to appear in court for online piracy. The only thought in your mind (aside from “This is bullshit”) would probably be, “Shouldn’t I be allowed to download music for free without being sued?”

Although the Recording Industry of America Association (RIAA) is starting to crackdown on file swappers, there is only one man who can take credit for starting a revolution of MP3 File Sharing: Shawn Fanning. Shawn Fanning was just a normal college student at Northeastern University, but created a place where he and his friends could exchange MP3 files to one another. What eventually happened was the modern-day success called Napster. Napster is probably the most known File Sharing Service that has ever been seen. When artists (Lars Ulrich and Dr. Dre) and the RIAA tried shutting down Napster, more music services opened up, like Audiogalaxy, Morpheus, Kazaa, Bearshare, and Limewire, just to name a few. Due to the constant threats of being sued, some of these music services are willing to play by a few rules, by asking for money for downloading music, but is that enough to keep artists and the RIAA from taking everything you own?

Bottom line is that by downloading music for free, recording artists, record labels and copyright companies (like the RIAA) are strongly offended. One reason is it takes away the element of surprise. How so? There are many performers who say that they like to shock their audience with their unreleased songs and give away special items, but with file sharing services offering swapping of almost any files (music, movies, photos, etc.), the “shock value” completely disappears. What I can’t seem to figure out is even if someone were to download a tune, video, or picture that was surprising, wouldn’t he or she have the same exact thought(s) if it were to be released at a later date? Another huge grudge that composers have is by getting music for free, people are taking away money from the artists. This argument is totally understandable because if someone were to write, publish, and perform an act, then that person should be entitled to rights. What seems fishy about this is although companies say that downloaders are taking money away from the industry, the numbers show that there is actually an increase in record sales since File Sharing Services have surfaced. Also, band’s first week numbers have never been better. Limp Bizkit sold over a million copies of their “Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water” in its’ first week. N’SYNC set a Soundscan record for most albums sold in one week, with their 2000 effort, “No Strings Attached,” moving over 2.4 million copies. Queens rapper, 50 Cent sold over 800,000 units in his opening week. One has to wonder that if labels, artists, and companies claim they’re losing money, is it really just an unsupported excuse? The most valid argument they have is downloading music, movies, and photos are illegal: it’s called copyright infringement. Sure, this may be criminal, but isn’t public intoxication, prank phone calls (harassment), smoking marijuana (drugs), and prostitution illegal as well? Those are all characteristics in the lives of rock stars. I’m not saying that every rock star does this, but a great majority either pursue these illegal activities or activities related to this sort. Don’t celebrities know whether they like it or not, that society makes them role models? Shouldn’t they be setting an example for others?

On the other side of the coin, file swappers feel that they have a God-given right to exchange music through the Internet. Some people feel that they should be allowed to get music off the net for free because they believe recording artists make a ton of dough. They have the mentality, “So, I’m not buying the album. What’s a few bucks going to do? They’re rich anyways.” This isn’t entirely true. In a recent interview with MTV for a special program, Good Charlotte (widely known punk rock band) stated they weren’t rich. When thinking about any music group, some people fail to take into account the use of money. When a record label signs a recording artist(s), the band usually gets a low percentage of the album sales (I believe the norm is for every album sold, they group gets eight cents). With the money gained, they have to pay their manager, tour bus, gas, motels, sets, meals, public relations and (but not limited to) marketing. Some of the most successful music groups have even gone bankrupt (remember TLC)? Some fans download tunes just because they want to hear what an artist has to offer. If someone were to download a couple of songs and really liked them, not only will that individual be heavily interested in the artist, but would probably purchase the album, DVDs, concert tickets, and memorabilia. On the other hand though, you have the really cheap people who cry poor and refuse to do that, although they would be extremely happy to burn the whole album to a blank CD, laughing away because they “screwed the group out of buying the album.” It’s sad to see that those people feel the need that the entertainment industry owes them something. There is a lot of creativity, diversity, and messages being thrown out in the forms of audible and visual art that draws people in. Artists do this stuff out of love, but it seems that there are some people who want to be selfish and steal every chance they get. But hey, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Even though there is a hot debate on whether downloading music should be free or not, some artists don’t mind it at all. Dave Grohl (of Nirvana and Foo Fighters fame) was on HBO and even said, “It doesn’t bother me. Just because people download my music, I won’t be at a huge loss. I’ll still be able to eat in the morning.” I even remember Napster funding a free tour, which featured Limp Bizkit and Cypress Hill in 2000. Napster even gave the fans free pizza and drinks. Other artists like the Offspring, Rage Against The Machine, and Dave Matthews have shown support to the File Sharing Services.

Although there are unlawful ways to acquire music, there are lots of ways to do it legally and for free. iTunes has teamed up with Pepsi and one out of every three bottle caps wins the Pepsi drinker free song to download. Also, there are a lot of groups who post their songs on their website to be heard by web users. The reasoning behind this is fairly simple: the band wants to get their name out in the world. One interesting thing is even though Napster closed down, it is back on the market, however, tunes aren’t free. To download a song, it costs one dollar.

Today, we live in a society where we are consumed by the almighty dollar. Whether it is the recording artists who are trying to make a buck, the businessmen trying to keep their buck, or the fans that are trying to con them out of a buck, what it all boils down to is selfish propaganda. The only question left to ask is if this is bullshit.

{Please post a comment}