crappy ramblings about information and file sharing. cara wanted me to write and this is what came of it.
information. in the right hands it can save the world, for a price. come one, come all-knowledge is free with only a few little charges attached. want it in your native language? that'll cost you. want to change the color of the backgrounds? that'll cost you. want to learn how to use it? that'll really cost you. now, i know what you're thinking: what's free? well. it does come in a shiny cardboard box.
information wants to be free, like all great things it begs to be shared. we're the ones who put a price on it. we can't stand the thought of someone learning something new or enjoying something unless it lines our poclets in the process. take iTunes for example. i suppose that .99 a song is reasonable considering you get a break if you buy an entire CD but now everything is 1.99 because they feel you have to have a ring tone and liner notes. i didn't ask for a ring tone, did you? i didn't ask for liner notes to a song that i obviously already know the words too. did you? now, a dollar for these features also is not bad considering that most people are glued to their cell phone and have their iPod on their hip but, i don't see why they can't be optional or hell, even free. if i really liked a song which, i obviously would have to if i was going to pay for it let alone pay for it from a place like apple *shudders* than a free ringtone with my purchase would be a great incentive for me to come back.
oh no, file sharing is going to destroy the music industry! really? is that why you've had record sales these past few years? on top of that, ive got news for you-as long as their have been songs their have been people getting that song for free. before records, we would hop the fence or stand outside the door. with records, we'd get it from some moron who decided to pay. cds and tapes have made it all the easier. you even sell us the tools we need. if we weren't copying tapes and CDs, why would we need dual deck stereos?
liked hearing your take on it, looking forward to your next entry. also, its worth nothing that there's a difference between information and artistic product. the creator has the right to charge money.
ReplyDeleteno, they don't. artistic or informative, it's still information and therefore should be open to all. it should be up to the person acquiring the information if it is worth paying for.
ReplyDeletewell you can be as idealistic as you want, but singers have to put food on the table too at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteyes, but like i said-the music industry is making record amounts of money. even if it is free, there will always be people who choose to pay for it. obviously, enough to feed these artists. also, they don't need as much money as they're making. maybe they need to live like the rest of the world for a while?
ReplyDeletewell they're not like the rest of the world, they're talented enough to entertain. most people cant.
ReplyDeleteas for the 'even if its free...' bit, that goes against your argument. you want to make it completely free (labeling artistic property "information"). if it was completely free, those people who currently pay for music will no longer do so and the artists have no income.
in essence what you're saying is that the current system should prevail, and people should fight the law to get free music and those who pay should keep paying (no matter how few those may be).
interesting twist of it. i suppose that is what i want yes, but i dont think it should just be music, it should be everything
ReplyDeleteHmm..I understand your point of view, but I have to agree with RxnMan here. Singers need to put food on the table too, and I can't imagine anyone paying for anything if it was being offered for free. :P
ReplyDelete