[O71394658]

I see nothing wrong at all with downloading music. Look at it from this standpoint:

I think everyone knows that it's "stealing". It's wrong, yet the American public continues to do it, and partly because we feel justified in doing so. Justified in the fact that the money we may want our hard-earned dollars to go to aren't going to the right places. As punkgirlie stated, 14 cents per CD. I thought it was higher. I thought it was around $1. Look at it this way. Artists do not, repeat do not receive most of their income through CD sales. Not even close. They receive a minimal amount of money through the purchase of each CD. Their primary source of income are concert sales. As in devout fans of the music come and pay to see them live. I would believe that downloading music has little effect on acutal artist's income. I would argue that it would even increase in releasing files. If more fans get exposed to the music (if that artists is good- fewer and fewer of them these days) then more fans will show up to concerts, which will drive up the artists revenue.

Most feel that all the money spent on a CD goes to fat, rich white men who are already millionares, so we feel justified in withholding our money from them. Besides, the fact that record companies are placing sole blame of the music slump on MP3s is ludicrous. Of course, some blame deserves to go there, but clearly not all. It's an interesting fact to know that sales of used and reduced-priced CDs are skyrocketing by the day. Sales are booming in these areas. Most people don't want to shell out $20 for a CD to hear one song that's been repeated ad infinitum on the radio. That's why many "popular" CD artists' sales may have been slumping. Artists these days are popular for one song. The rest of the CD blows. Why pay $20 for a CD when you can download it for free. It doesn't make logical sense. It's happened a bunch of times to me. Buying a CD only to find out the rest of the songs are mediocre at best. If the artists devoted more time to actually putting effort into songs, then they might see the problem correct itself.

Another reason is the fact that many people feel that "true" artists don't care if people download their music. If you're a musician, and you truly care about the music, then all you want is to get people to listen to it. I mean, if you truly love it, then you're definitely going to have a lot of skill, and the money would follow as a result. Too many bubblegum pop princesses are thrown down our throats, people who are only in it to get rich or die trying. This is what I don't like about the music industry, and I think many people don't care if people like this don't get any of their money (even if they do download the songs.)

Myself, I've purchased more CDs since this thing started then ever before. I simply use the Internet as a very effective screening source. If I'm digging a song, I'll check out other songs by the artist. If those meet my expectations, off to the music store I go to pay $20 for the blatantly overpriced CD that cost 30 cents to produce (including packaging and case). The responsibility is with the artist. If he's good, I'm going to like the CD, and purchase it. If he isn't, then I'm not going to buy the CD. No one is going to pay 15 bucks for a single song anymore, and I'm no exception. Those days are over. The music industry has to adapt, most effectively by putting out some quality artists and lowering CD prices to draw customers back in. Kicking and screaming like a kid about to get a tetanus shot isn't going to do a god-damn thing. It's only alienating the public.