An argument for "free" music.

Yes I know that the music artist have to make money. But I don't beleive they should do it with their music. Because everyone can attest to the fact that on some occasions music can touch the soul. While of course it is in some ways bad, on most occasions it is good. As a result our lives are richely inhanced.(I think most would agree). So then music makes the world a better place. And anything that makes the world a better place should be free.

I would think that a lot of musicians can't really make money with much other than their music, considering a lot of them spend the majority of their time on the road touring and such. If they are going from city to city all the time, its hard to hold down a steady job.

I download music occasionally myself, but only older music, by people who aren't around anymore anyway (jimmi hendrix, janis joplin, john coltrane etc.). I think that if the artists are out there working hard to make and promote the music, and its music that you like enough to want to own, they deserve the money for it.

I think that music can enrich our lives, and because of that the people who make that music deserve to be rewarded for it.

Musicians make most of their money by touring, selling out concerts ect. When it's all said and done they only make a few cents per cd sold. Now say an artist makes 10 cents per cd. They sell a million copies. that's only 100k dollars. Smart musicians promote their music freely on the internet, while at the same time drawing audiences to their live shows. It's the record companies that want to stop music from being shared online. They don't make money at concerts.

But doesn't downloading illegally hurt those who work in the software department or CD line?

I don't know exact statistics, but it would seem logical that the record companies are the ones being hurt the most. Software companies produce and sell cds on a massive scale and cds are used for a large array of purposes, I seriously doubt they are suffering a whole lot due to a drop in record sales. Recording companies however, rely soley on the profits made from selling musician's cds.

I think the majority of the money the artists make is in the cd's not in the shows. You have to take into account the money to rent a stadium, equipment and security. But even if the concerts do make more money than the CD's their is a lot more work in a concert than in a CD. It's only in the studio they have to work. Which is really only a short time considering the profit. Where as a concert they have to sing for like 4 or 5 hours in each city. The work to benefit ratio is a lot better on a CD than at a concert. So I agree to free music because it makes the artists have to actually work for their money.

Musicians see more returns on profits made at concerts. Their record companies get the majority of the money made from CD sales. And yes this is my point, musicians should have to work for a living and generally they do.

So should we hurt the profits of record companies? What if you worked in a record company?

Well, record companies do a fair amount in promoting bands. They are kind of a neccissary evil in the industry. I would tend to respect a group more if they became famous through their own actions; this makes record companies even less crucial in my eyes. If you want to try to profit off of other people's work so be it, but don't complain when your job gets tougher lol.

But with so many bands and singers these days, it's really difficult to get recognized. And once you do get recognized, where are you going to find the money to sell your stuff?

There are a lot of bands and artists out there...Just not a lot of good ones. It's not just about being good anymore you gotta be good looking too. Which I agree because I like seeing beautiful people on MTV.