What are the rules of the game for the people who promote free downloads of movies and music?
I can see that there would be room for musicians and film makers who release all their material for free so other people can copy it and enjoy it. I can see how the artists would benefit from the attention and appreciation they get, and from the fact that people can listen before they buy. I can see millions of people paying to go to the concerts with those artists and freely paying for the material on online stores out of sheer gratitude. I can also see that the results might be better if left to true enthusiasts who believe in their art than the industrially produced movies of Hollywood and big music companies.
However, I cannot see that it could be my decision if a particular artist should handle his/her music in that way.
If a movie company invests in a new movie based on the assumption that people should pay for it every time they watch it - in the cinema or on their own devices, then, surely, it is not up to me to change that business assumption by downloading the film for free from some channel the movie company does not control?
If a musician hates making tours and wants to live on selling their music only on recorded media, then, how can I take the decision that this musician should give away their music for free to me?
Isn't the inevitable conclusion that it is not only illegal, but also immoral, to acquire intellectual property for free against the express wish of the producer?
If all media was free, then we would limit the production of movies that require people to pay. We would limit the music that depends on payment.
But on the other hand, this does not mean that the protection of the artist's rights has to be a top priority of the state. It does not mean that harsh punishments and infringements on freedom of speech are excused.
It just means that we should follow the rules of the game.
I can see that there would be room for musicians and film makers who release all their material for free so other people can copy it and enjoy it. I can see how the artists would benefit from the attention and appreciation they get, and from the fact that people can listen before they buy. I can see millions of people paying to go to the concerts with those artists and freely paying for the material on online stores out of sheer gratitude. I can also see that the results might be better if left to true enthusiasts who believe in their art than the industrially produced movies of Hollywood and big music companies.
However, I cannot see that it could be my decision if a particular artist should handle his/her music in that way.
If a movie company invests in a new movie based on the assumption that people should pay for it every time they watch it - in the cinema or on their own devices, then, surely, it is not up to me to change that business assumption by downloading the film for free from some channel the movie company does not control?
If a musician hates making tours and wants to live on selling their music only on recorded media, then, how can I take the decision that this musician should give away their music for free to me?
Isn't the inevitable conclusion that it is not only illegal, but also immoral, to acquire intellectual property for free against the express wish of the producer?
If all media was free, then we would limit the production of movies that require people to pay. We would limit the music that depends on payment.
But on the other hand, this does not mean that the protection of the artist's rights has to be a top priority of the state. It does not mean that harsh punishments and infringements on freedom of speech are excused.
It just means that we should follow the rules of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment