just found through the BBC site a place called pro-music. Yet another hot bed of lies and deceit by the 5 majors to claim piracy is "teh eevil!12"
So Ive decided to take each of their "myths" about free music and rip into them
. Their comments will be bold, mines plain text.
http://www.pro-music.org/freemusic/p...m#theseartists
1."Free music' sounds great. What's the problem?"
t is a common misconception that accessing so-called 'free music' - by downloading or burning music from the internet without the creator's permission and without paying for it - doesn't really hurt anyone.
fallacy - strawman, not all free music is by signed artists and not all is on the internet without their permission. By creating this strawman they try to make out that all music online is illegal.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Unauthorised uploading or copying is not free at all - it is the musicians and the people who invest in the music who are paying the price.
well mainly the people who "invest" as the artists get next to nothing from album sales. Downloading that MP3 will stop some industry sleaze getting a new Merc this year, hardly killing his livlihood. Thats even if you believe their nonsense.
The artists, first and foremost, the labels that have invested in them, the publishers who manage the copyright of their songs and the thousands of people involved in the many different areas of the music industry are all affected. Downloading and burning without permission doesn't fairly reward the efforts of those who create, develop and record music, and who depend on it for their livelihood.
99% of record deals dont fault reward those who create the music, but when do the RIAA etc speak about that? If someone does download an album because they cant afford to buy a CD, how does that steal money from them if they were not going to buy it anyway? Thats without going into a rant about artists creating music for art and not for money.
More illegal copying and internet distribution means less sales, and that means less money for companies to invest in artists and music. This affects a whole community of people: the employee at the retail store that faces closure ; the aspiring artist who won't get a deal because record companies have less money to invest in new talent;
the reason there is no money to invest in talent is because its getting p*ssed against the wall giving Blobby Williams and Mariah Carey 80million dollar record contract advances not to mention the lawyers earning more than the artists for sales!
the entrepreneur who's making records with local kids; the act who is trying to survive from selling CDs on the road; and the artist whose first album just failed to sell enough to turn a profit. On top of that, there are the thousands of other people who depend upon music for their income: from the sound engineers and CD factory workers to the band managers and graphic artists. There are also countless music magazines, entrepreneurs trying to set up legitimate online sites, designers, specialist PR people… the list goes on.
so artists who generally tour in wee venues to close audiences of fans living off tshirt sales etc and who put their mp3s online in order to gaina bigger audience are damaged by people downloading their music and then going to their gig afterwards? Can these people actually flip between the multimillionairres who they represent and student bands who they dont represent so easily and think no one will notice?
Furthermore - copying music without permission is illegal. And just because it doesn't involve organised crime or knock-offs sold on street corners doesn't mean that it isn't taken very seriously.
yet again assuming that free music is without the copyright holders persmission