The Harms of Online Music Sharing are Exaggerated - Music Essay Example
What is online music sharing? - The Harms of Online Music Sharing are Exaggerated introduction?? Online music sharing is the purchase or duplication of music online rather then purchasing the original. Are there harms in sharing music online? Yes, there are harms in online music sharing, if you do not abide by the copyright laws set by the Federal Trade Commission, it is considered copyright infringement.
The top executives in the music industry are not happy with people sharing music files because the executives feel that file sharing is taking away from their profits from the music they have copyrighted. They are actually taking money away from the artists who actually created the music. The creators of the music have to sign a contract stating that the company owns the music even though they compose the music. The artist only gets a small percentage of the revenue. Executives are the ones getting all the profits. They are saying “with every file shared online that is one less CD consumers are buying”. That is not the case. People who are sharing music online do not have the money to buy CDs anyway. They are just trying to get the most for music they can, for free. If these people did not share online, they would not go and buy the CD anyway, they do not have the money.
essay sample on "The Harms of Online Music Sharing are Exaggerated"? We will write a cheap essay sample on "The Harms of Online Music Sharing are Exaggerated" specifically for you for only $12.90/page
More Music Essay Topics.
All of this has happened before. Executives complained when radio came out, they thought this would hurt record sales. In fact, it boosted them. Execs were afraid TV would stop the sale of movies, but look at the movie industry now. So how are they really loosing sales? No!
One senator suggested (Orson Scoot Card) seeding MP3 sharing sites with virus, instead of threatening music sharing people, just explaining the facts to everyone. . That is punishment without due-process. Tell people to sample the music, but do not give away whole albums. People can grasp this concept. Drop the high prices, and start treating the actual artists better. Give them better cuts instead of the top executives. Artists are the ones who really deserve the money.
Orson Scott Card says, “Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government”. (2006)
Orson Scott Card, “Publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a work for hire, so the authors wouldn’t own any part of their own work”. (2006)
Orson Scott Card, “Do you think companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy CDs”. (2006)
What are copyrights? Who really should be receiving the royalties from the music?
The technical definition for copyrights is a set of exclusive rights granted by government for a limited time to protect the particular form, way or manner in which an idea or information is expressed. Copyright may subsist in a wide range of creative or artistic forms or “works”, including literary works, movies, musical works, sound recordings, paintings, photographs, software, and industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property. (www.encyclopedia.com)
Copyright law only protects the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, and is not designed or intended to protect the actual concepts, facts, styles or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the ideas or information.
In Lehman’s terms, prior to 1978 without a copyright, any one can state claim on someone’s work. Once a “work” has been performed or printed, other people who saw, heard, or read it could simply do their own performances. Print their own editions and keep all the money without paying a dime to the creator of the work.
Since 1978, the laws have changed so that copyright lasted until a certain number of years after the author’s death, which is a benefit to the creator, now the creator can outlive the copyright & the descendants can derive from the income also.
Are the companies really a friend or foe? Who are the real thieves?
It’s pretty hilarious to hear record company executives and movie studio executives get all righteous about copyright. They’ve been manipulating copyright laws for years, and all the manipulations were designed to steal everything they could from the actual creators of the work. Do you think these companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy CDs and DVDs?
Here’s a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used “creative accounting” to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, depriving the creative people of their “percentage of profits.” A few have dared to sue, but most figure that it isn’t worth the ill will.
(The sentence “You’ll never work in this town again” runs through their minds. They remember what happened to [1940s actor] Cliff Robertson after he blew the whistle on an executive who was flat-out embezzling!) (Unknown)
Record companies manage to skim enormous amounts of money from every CD sold. Calculate, by going to the computer store and figuring out the price of an individual recordable blank CD. Figure that the record companies have been paying a fraction of that price for years. Then subtract that from the price of a CD. Figure the songwriters and performers are getting some ludicrously small percentage, less than twenty percent. I’d bet, and all the rest flows to the record company.
Orson Scott Card asks, “Who are the criminals”? (2006)
In other words, the people complaining about all the internet “thieves” are, by any reasonable measure, rapacious profiteers who have been parasitically sucking the blood out of copyrights on other people’s work.
Orson Scott Card asks again, “Who are the criminals”? (2006)
Orson Scott Card says, “I agree with the points that the executives have, such as, calling the people criminals”.
The definition of a criminal is one that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. Stealing is a crime. Top executives do have a right to complain because that is their opinion of the situation, but I also feel that if the artist chooses to sign the contract then the executives are not stealing anything, they are abiding by the contract.
Yes, the artist is the person that deserves the monies made from sales of the product but once a written contract is completed then what ever stipulations are included is what is abided by.
I also feel that the artist is reaping rewards from the boot- legged/ online sharing/ pirate/ downloaded copies of music because once you hear or see the artist’s work and it is awesome then, it is a must to have the “copy with the words, pictures and colors”, basically the original!
No, I don’t think companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy the CD’s. This is a selfish way of thinking, but if the artist would make “GREAT” music all the time. We wouldn’t have to buy boot-leg CD’s or pull their music from other places then wasting our money on a “dud” of a CD.
In conclusion, online music sharing can become harmful if you don’t pay attention to what you are downloading. If downloaded inappropriately, you can be considered as a “criminal” if caught. Read all instructions carefully before attempting to share online. Do not infringe on a copyright if you are prompted to leave that secure place, leave. Download Away!!!