2. "These artists are immensely rich anyway, downloading a few tracks for free is not going to hurt them."
The overwhelming majority of artists are NOT rich. And it's not just a few tracks but virtually everything ever recorded. But the biggest losers are the upcoming artists because not paying for music means much less money to invest in them.
are they trying to claim that suddenly the day mp3 was invented that artists bank accounts were emptied? It has always been the case that a small minority of musicians are rich and the rest are not but this is the fault of the record companies who screw them over in crappy contracts while lining their own pockets.
Which means it's the music lover who gets short-changed. Fewer artists get the chance to make their mark, and the labels are less likely to take a risk with more experimental music or niche genres.
Like they have always done in the past?
Consumers of 'free music' may get a short-term benefit, but at the long-term cost of hurting the artists they most admire, and new talent.
consumers of free music get short and long term benefits, artists may get small short term benefits (thats if you ignore more promotion = more people to go to gigs/buy music) and great long term benefits, if for example they build up a large following and keep 100% of their sales profits rather than signing a record contract and getting about 2-3%.
People who accuse the music industry of not producing anything new should give some thought to how that impacts on new artists. Think of the bands - and there are many, including U2, R.E.M. and David Gray - who didn't make it big with their first or second album. Bands need time to flourish, and if their early sales are cannibalised on the internet, they may never get the chance to become the next U2 or R.E.M.
Well I was going to write a serious response but decided instead to ask why would be want even more U2, REM or David Gray?
