Creating songs, music, lyrics, and so much more would be a waste of time, if people would steal or download the music or songs for free. Many musicians and song writers are opposed to internet sites that allow people to download their music free of charge. They claim that doing so is indirect violation of existing copyright laws. Moreover, this free copying prevents artists from getting royalty payments for their work. People who download music on these web pages, claim that it is really no different than recording a song played on the radio, or videotaping a movie on television. Therefore, downloading music for free should not be permitted.
Imagine, if a person who had created a song, that was loved by the public. Then the song is downloaded for free everyday, not allowing the producer of the song to make any money. Although, downloading music or music videos for free sometimes is what causes people to buy the cd's, dvd's, and etc.,
but then the producer would not be rewarded for their accomplishment. Also, producers could go bankrupt if the public only downloads their music or videos for free. Many producers have already gone bankrupt because the public does not purchase their music.
Although, there are ways for producers to make sure that no one downloads music for free, and one of those ways is if someone is about to download the music, they have to pay a fee. There are many other ways, for example making sure that only less than half of the music is able to be downloaded for free, or it could only have some parts of the music that was avaliable to be downloaded. There are other techniques that could allow producers to persuide the public to purchase their product, and not download them.
Downloading Music. Persuasive Essay That Agrees Downloading Music Is Right And Shouldn't Be Restricted
In 1999, an 18-year-old college drop out named Shawn Fanning invented the program that was Napster. Almost instantaneously upon its release its popularity grew, making the small building located in Redwood City, California an instant controversial interest across America. Napster was an Internet based program that allowed users share and download media files for free. Since Napster didn't hold the files and they originally belonged to the users, it was difficult for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to file a case against them. Eventually, at Napster's peak in 2001, it was shut down. Nonetheless, new programs rose to take Napster's place. There are two that still exist and are the most popular, Morpheus and Kazaa, which are used most frequently by the youth of America. Since 2003, the RIAA has found a new way to end file sharing: suing any individual found with an excessive amount of illegal music and charged at an average of $12,500 to $17,000. The prices these kids have to pay are ridiculous and the fact that they are being sued in the first place is an outrage. Because they download music, innocent parents must pay the price. Downloading music for free is easy and convenient and may encourage the user to buy a full album.
The main issue is that sharing music is right. Most of the file sharers are middle class teenagers who would rather listen to that one song instead of buy the whole album. Many teenagers do not have a monthly income to buy albums with that one song they want. Some feel that buying the whole album isn't worth the money as the prices have recently increased within the past few months. Increased album prices only encourage file sharers to share more music more often than before. Even before file sharing programs appeared, people could easily record music from their CDs onto their tapes and give them to friends so they could duplicate the songs as well. But now, file sharing has revolutionized music, so they might as well get used to it.
Yet the RIAA protests that since programs like Napster had appeared, CD sales had gone down. Still they had billions...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%