Downloading Music.

What is so wrong with that? You are chillin', driving along, and you hear this song that just rocks your world. So you take note of the name, the artist, the lyrics, whatever. You go home, you find it, you click the button, and depending on your modem, in a little while you have a new song in your music library. Maybe you will eventually will burn it onto a CD, maybe you never will. Either way, it is there for your music enjoyment and personal entertainment.

Some college students have found a good source of entertainment in running their own web-based search engines or something of that variety so that fellow students can get the musical hook-ups they want. One Michigan Tech junior is currently getting sued for $98 Billion because of his Google-type search engine. The group that took offense to this is pressing charges for $150,000 a song - are you kidding me. (Check out the article in the Rolling Stone with the American Flag cover...) He's not the only one getting screwed, but he is the only 20 year old that would be eternally in debt if that lawsuit was to go through. And judge that lets that much money go through should be shot. How many people actually feel he was doing something wrong? I'll bet that judge, or maybe his kids, or both, go home every night and download music.

Why do record companies take so much offense? They feel that it drastically reduces record sales. Well, you know, if you would stop signing bands/groups/people that can't really sing, but look good only and can have their voice synthsized to sound fantastic, and could really put on a good show by their own merit, maybe they wouldn't have that problem. People like concerts. People will go to concerts. People can't download concerts on iMesh. Isn't that where the money is, anyway? CD's sell for $13, concert tickets sometimes start at $30. Plus, once you get to a show, there is all sorts of fantastic merchandise, and a lot of people feel a very burning need to buy it at it's grossly high prices. Sucky for them, but awesome for the record company exec.'s that are so concerned that they are only going to make $850,000 this year, as opposed to the $900,000 they made the year before.

And to the artists that are violently opposed to downloading music on the Internet, what good are you? You aren't performing for the fans anymore, if you ever were, you are now too absorbed in yourself and your money to care about your fans. But what's worse is that people will still idolize them, still buy their records, still go to their concerts, buy their merchandise, but - I win! - those same fans also will still download their music! Didn't it ever occur to anyone that downloading music isn't much different than borrowing a CD from your friend and copying it, but they aren't desperately searching for them and piling on the lawsuits. Given, it would be harder to track that down, but the principle of it is what I'm preaching.

Personally, if I really like a group, and their whole album just rocks, I want the real thing. I want the actual little booklet that comes with it, and I want the actual disc that has the cool decoration. If I download an entire album, and it rocks my world that much, then going out and buying the album anyway. However, that doesn't apply to most people, so that wouldn't be a legitimate argument.

I'm not going to say that downloading music is right. I can understand why artist, songwriters, etc. get so upset about millions of people sharing their work on the Internet. Many of them worked very hard to write, practice, perform their music, and they don't want all of that hard work to be in vain because one person distributes it to everyone else. Martin compared downloading music to going into a barn and stealing a farmers milk. Why is downloading anymore right than doing that? As a songwriter and performer, and I can understand where his strong feelings come from. How can someone justify gaining this free music, just because it's not a physical object, like milk? And if you justify it to yourself by saying "Well, it's just me...", how many more people do you think are doing the exact same thing? That's an awful lot of "just me" going on, and that equals an awful lot of money that could be going to one of the people that helped create the song.

And I feel for them. I could imagine that it would be very upsetting, and seeing a firsthand account of the strong feelings that this topic stirs up, it really is. I would be angry also I'm sure if I was in their position. I don't have very strong feelings either way, I can see why it's okay, and why it should be banned, but I figure that since I do some of the downloading, then I feel that I have to say it's okay. It would be hypocritical of me to say it's wrong. My friend Geoff has this take on it: "I think banning the downloading of copyrighted files is wrong becuase whether or not you know how to use a computer (ie. ripping your own cds for backup) you are still entitled to backup your gear, and kazaa and the like help people who aren't computer savvy do just that, the same with movies and games...they need to police individual users, not programs like kazza, because...it's used to share files that are not copyrighted, ie. essays, small programs from small programmers, music from groups trying to become known..." Geoff is saying that people like him should be getting in trouble for this type if thing because they are "downloading copyrighted music that they don't have the license to." True statement.

Which brings me to another thing. I have asked several people about their opinion, and a lot of them give me the "well, it's cool...but I'm not the one getting screwed." Also a very true statement. And very hypocritical. Every single person that said that either downloads it themselves, or gets CD's from friends that download for them. Many of them feel that the artists have enough money as it is - they all drive nice cars, are bling-blingin', have more than one house - so why does it matter if they don't make as much anymore, right? Unfortuantely, the artists aren't the only ones getting the shaft. They have promoters, various producers, mixers, studio help, recording studio use, etc. to pay for out of that disc that you are currently not purchasing. Not to mention that most of them are millions of dollars in debt...

It helps artists get their music out. Man, there's a way to justify. Most of you still won't buy the disc once you "discover" them, and you know it. And why should you, right? I mean, here! It's free! You don't have much money either, right? They sure have a heck of a lot more than you do (see previous paragraph), so why not. Mmhmm...don't know about that! They have to make a living somehow, and if everyone thought like that, then there would be problems I fear. Oh, wait! There are! Otherwise, people wouldn't be prosecuting, right...yeah, right.

Many artists get labeled as sell-outs for being angry about this. Like what I said earlier, they care more about the money than the music and the people. All very disappointing. But can't you see where they're coming from? If you were a doctor, and then one day somebody just decided that you had to start giving free check-ups to whoever had the means to get them, how would you feel? You only worked for at least 7 years to get there, right? A musician only works for years to get a record deal. Why not steal from them once they get there?

However, the prosecution really gets me. Aren't there better, more threatening things to be filing lawsuits for and filling court rooms with? All of this time and scandal is being taken up with downloading music - something that will probably never really hurt someone - from a World Wide Web filled with child pornography and recipes for bombs and drugs. To quote a reader of Rolling Stone, "All this time it hasn't been the murderers, rapists or drug dealers who have been threatening our safety but those damn music fans."