Matt Phillips , We already have to pay to see artists perform live, so why shouldn't their studio work be free? Professional recording equipment is now widely affordable and distribution costs don‘t exist for downloads. In contrast live performance incurs many costs (venue hire, PA equipment, promotion, transport, etc) and delivers a unique product. In this climate shouldn't artists consider their recordings purely as a promotional tool for their live product?
Asked by JohnDuffy on Nov 02 2007 2:58:43 PM and supported by 29 members
MORE!
Why not? If you want to give your music away for free then all power to you. The point that’s often missed about music and free music is that the record industry has always given music away for free; whether it’s through the radio paid for through advertising, the television or as free CD samplers.
What’s changed is the ability to get everything for free, on-spec, through illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing. What the industry has a problem with is not being able to generate any income, or enough income, in order to be able to invest in new recordings.
It’s not actually the consumers right to have everything for free. The very essence of copyright is that the creator has the right to decide what happens to their music. If I want to give my music away for free that’s entirely up to me, but it’s not up to the consumer to give it away for free to millions of others on the internet.