2008 Woodie Awards
Is the Record Industry Justified in Suing Music Downloaders?
Point: The art of ripping
Paul Davis
Issue date: 9/30/03 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
By now everyone has heard of Napster, or Kazaa, or some other internet tool that allows us to share files online. Even AOL Instant Messenger has the capabilities to share files over the internet. Many of you have also probably heard about the crack down on it. Now people are being traced through the internet, so they may be attacked by the music industry for the songs they have downloaded. Don't these companies make enough already off the artists? I don't think the companies should care if, to an extent, we are sharing files or contributing to the pirating of music according to these current laws.
The RIAA is one of the biggest prosecutors in this. The problem is that they are being overzealous with their legalities, and they are scaring away their customer base. I only buy from artists that I think really deserve it, and it's hard to tell if a CD is worth it unless you have a sample. It may not be the cleanest area to take example from, but the porn industry has started giving out free samples over file sharing programs, so people get a taste of the product, and then they are more willing to pay for it. They acknowledge that the pay items will still get out now and then, but far less since free material is already out there. Why doesn't the record company try sending out free samples, so that the customer has a taste of it? They are less likely to be looking for the paid items since they can get the samples without hassle and without legal problems. The reason the RIAA hasn't thought of this: they mostly profit off of the CD sales where the artist usually only profits off radio royalties and performances. The RIAA is being greedy, and instead of lightening up, which they should do, they choke their customers.
The work of these artists should be free, as well. If someone thinks it's good, they'll pay for it, but they shouldn't have to pay for the expressions of other individuals unless it truly is worth it. I have no problems throwing down money on such groups as Lincoln Park, Power Man 5000, and such, but I struggle to throw down my money on a band that I haven't heard before, especially so much money for less than an hour of questionable entertainment. Some artists have started putting up official downloads, distributing them through Kazaa and the like. There are also areas that are being ripped that cost much more then mere music.
Video games cost up to $50, and they are also being shared. You don't see Activision or Raven running around and busting down those people that just ripped their games. They get the money needed, and they don't want to scare away their fan base, which keeps growing. The RIAA should take this example and start relaxing, instead of hiding behind legality so blindly and scaring away its customer base.
"The problem is that they are being overzealous with their legalities, and they are scaring away their
customer base." -Paul Davis
The RIAA is one of the biggest prosecutors in this. The problem is that they are being overzealous with their legalities, and they are scaring away their customer base. I only buy from artists that I think really deserve it, and it's hard to tell if a CD is worth it unless you have a sample. It may not be the cleanest area to take example from, but the porn industry has started giving out free samples over file sharing programs, so people get a taste of the product, and then they are more willing to pay for it. They acknowledge that the pay items will still get out now and then, but far less since free material is already out there. Why doesn't the record company try sending out free samples, so that the customer has a taste of it? They are less likely to be looking for the paid items since they can get the samples without hassle and without legal problems. The reason the RIAA hasn't thought of this: they mostly profit off of the CD sales where the artist usually only profits off radio royalties and performances. The RIAA is being greedy, and instead of lightening up, which they should do, they choke their customers.
The work of these artists should be free, as well. If someone thinks it's good, they'll pay for it, but they shouldn't have to pay for the expressions of other individuals unless it truly is worth it. I have no problems throwing down money on such groups as Lincoln Park, Power Man 5000, and such, but I struggle to throw down my money on a band that I haven't heard before, especially so much money for less than an hour of questionable entertainment. Some artists have started putting up official downloads, distributing them through Kazaa and the like. There are also areas that are being ripped that cost much more then mere music.
Video games cost up to $50, and they are also being shared. You don't see Activision or Raven running around and busting down those people that just ripped their games. They get the money needed, and they don't want to scare away their fan base, which keeps growing. The RIAA should take this example and start relaxing, instead of hiding behind legality so blindly and scaring away its customer base.
"The problem is that they are being overzealous with their legalities, and they are scaring away their
customer base." -Paul Davis