Free Slides In The Music Industry

Even so, when the artist put their time and hard work into making songs that will catch the subscribers attention just for it be free. For instance, Jacob Carter of “The Changing Landscape of the Music Business” quotes “In November of 2014, award-winning musician Taylor Swift pulled her entire music catalog from Spotify, a popular streaming app, claiming that their business model suggests that music does not hold much worth.” This shows that Taylor Swift does not believe with the fact that her music is just out there for free and she not receiving money just for it be out there for the public. Thus, Darrius Johnson of “Selling Out Not Worth the Risk” quotes “In many situations, a record label owns the rights to an artist’s music, and if they license a song to a company or other party the artist has no control over how the song can be used.” To clarify, this information artists would not have their own opinion of doing any commercial because their music doesn’t belong to them but the record labels. This proves, that some artist has their opinion about their music they make and they just want to be free for the world to have because they took their time to create

Many artists and record companies do not think that it is a good thing to have their music available for free because they feel that they will lose a lot of money. The thing that they need to realize is that technology is only going to get better and they need to use it

When wanting to listen to a song today, one no longer has to buy or download a physical copy. In today’s world, streaming has become one of the top ways of retrieving music content. This major change has led to a profound shift for the music industry and its artists. It has developed a continuous conflict that affects the way music is distributed and how artists make a living. Listeners stream music electronically through their computers, phones, cars, and more. Most of these streaming platforms allow for the content to be free, which directs to the question of whether music should be free or not. Streaming is a topic that has presented itself to be a valid issue on whether it ultimately hurts or helps artists and their careers. Streaming has both pros and cons, but in order to aim to figure a possible solution there needs to an examination of the history of the issue, a proper analysis of both sides, and evaluating its importance.

I believed the basic aim of these websites were to digitally respond reasonable to the technological changes of how music was conveyed to drive sales In a positive manner but musician ended up getting a small fraction of the income receive from streaming videos and audio songs as royalties. I can personally testify to this with my personal attitude towards many popular songs I downloaded for free online that I heard for the first time on radio. In his article published in the New York Times on January 2013, Ben Sisario commented on how online streaming has hurt the industry and partially reduced sales. According to him, Many consumers has greatly welcomed this system citing them as a smart way to save money since streaming saves them more money than buying the physical album. This will virtually hurt the artist survival unless they are engaged in an important side business for survival. ( Hartwig Masuch, chief executive officer of BMG rights

I also believe that if you are a true fan of a certain music artist, then you should want to pay the money for their music and help support them in their music career. Downloading songs for free is disrespectful to music artists and takes away the meaning of hard work they put into all of their musical work. I would tell any friend of mine who supported illegal downloading that it’s illegal and if they really wanted to support that music artist, then they would buy the music and prove their support and passion for music by paying for it.

Long gone are the days of fierce ruffians ruling the high seas, but in America, another plague is falling upon even our most upstanding. The aforementioned problem we face as a society is new-age internet piracy; even the most law-abiding citizens are falling prey to the allure of saving $1.29. The temptation may be there to break the law, but I plead to you, please pay for your music. How are the labels that represent our favorite musicians supposed to make money if we steal what their client worked tirelessly to create? If we as a society don’t fully respect the craft by paying full price, how are we supposed to expect the same amount of effort the next go around? J. Cole might as well have released 3 Your Eyez Only since we

There are many artists who work hard to make their products but are rewarded with lesser than what the would have made if there were no piracy. In source 4 “A Musician’s rant”, “It would be fabulous if I could share my music for free, but believe it or not I have to eat (Source 4)"! If people were enforcing the law and making music available for everybody and not just people who are well off, then the others would not have to copy their products. The fact that poverty is an enormous issue in the world raises gigantic flags. This is why most of the world (those millions that were mentioned earlier) are copying music for their enjoyment what else would they be doing; riding in their Mercedes Benz collecting their 50,000 checks every month? Alma Mandelssohn conjures, “Let’s make sure that music and other files are easily available for low prices on legitimate sites, and that when people download from bootleg sources they get fined a small amount, but every single time (Source

3-4). While these statistics provide a look into the numerical growth of the streaming industry, it is also important to discuss the power that these streaming services have generated—over both the music industry and over established/aspiring artists. Subscriptions are on the rise, having increased significantly over the past ten years, but as is the amount of users streaming music on a free-trial or ad-supported basis—ultimately undercutting the music industry and artists alike. Blewett and Gollogly (2017) elaborate on this point, stating that, by the end of 2016, paid music streaming subscriptions drove a revenue growth of 60.4%—this growth more than offsetting a “20.5% decline in downloads” and a “7.6% decline in physical revenue” (Blewett & Gollogly, 2017, para. 4). Moreover, Borja and Dieringer (2016) explore the concept of streaming even further in their academic article, positing that the decline in paid digital downloads may be a direct result of streaming—as, music streaming can be perceived as a “complement” for music piracy, in which listeners can freely sample music to pirate later on (Borja & Dieringer, 2016, p. 1). The authors also suggest that streaming can provide a “venue for discovering and listening to new releases”; and after completing their 1052 surveys, conclude that streaming increased the likelihood of piracy by

The "business side of music is struggling to generate enough revenue because of the new technology" ("How the Internet Changed Music."). "Most of the people who are part of making a record are paid in royalties, and anytime music changes hands without money being involved, those royalties can’t be paid—which is why so much has been done in recent years to try and reduce music piracy"("How The Internet Changed Music."). iTunes and Amazon has helped by offering cheap downloads for single songs, which allows the customer to only purchase songs they like rather than the entire album ("How the Internet Changed Music."). Spotify and Pandora, who offer either ad-based or paid subscription streaming of their music libraries, are Internet radio stations which have also helped with the piracy problem ("How The Internet Changed

The question then became “Just because we can get the music we want without paying for it, should we?” (Tyson, 2000, p.1). This issue of illegal downloads, which is also referred to as piracy, has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of Napster. According to Recording Industry Association of America “In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion” (RIAA, 2014).

The music industry is an oligopoly. Since the late 1800’s people like Thomas Edison have been buying up patents in communication technology, forming monopolies, leading to a non-competitive entertainment industry. With only a handful of corporations controlling all aspects of acquisition, distribution and marketing of music, harsh business principles create an exploitative industry that takes the best of what artists have to offer and leaves many of them unable to support themselves. Beginning in the 1950’s with payola and white cover music and ultimately evolving into iTunes and Spotify, the music industry has grown into a billion dollar industry with far-reaching influence and control. Contracts rarely serve the artists’ best interest and many are left out to dry when their usefulness has expired.

The internet is the one media that brings up the most controversy in bands spreading their music. Whether they promote it or not their music is downloaded for free on the internet. Most bands do not like that their music is downloaded for free, but they can’t do much to stop it. In a way downloading music for free could bring the musicians even more money. If a person likes one of the songs they downloaded off of the internet they may be inclined to buy the entire album or at least the single. After the person buys the latest album they may even buy earlier albums from the same artist if they like the music enough. The internet has

Spotify is an online commercial music streaming platform that, despite earning a massive sum of Euros in 2012, has never recorded any profit ever since its launch in 2008. Royalty costs and increases in licensing costs cover most of Spotify’s expenses, and these fees continue to be a problem as it prevents Spotify from making a profit.

There are types of music that can be downloaded on the computer. Napster, which can be downloaded at Napster.com, is a program that music can be found. The music is kept in a library and just a double click on the mouse lets one hear any song downloaded. These songs can be found with either the title or the artist of the song. I feel that Napster has a good thing going with the free music. However, I feel that it shouldn’t be completely be free. The artists of the music are loosing out on a lot of money. A solution to this problem could be that songs could not be downloaded to the Napster program until the record had made a certain amount of money. Although, right now Napster is in court trying to compromise on a decision that will make everyone who uses Napster, everyone who created Napster and the artist of music happy.

Ever since the start of illegal music downloading there has been an ongoing debate. As with any controversy, there are those whose positions stand at one end of the spectrum or the other and also those who are moderate or nonchalant. Many believe that downloading a song without paying for it is not only illegal, but also immoral. None-the less, people continue to download songs, rationalizing that the record companies are getting what they deserve after years of overpriced CD's or that the artists won't really miss the money. Some people are not sure what to make of the situation, sympathizing in some respects with either side. There are several proposed solutions to this problem, but it has become obvious that there is not easy or clear