illegally downloading music, discussion help

Swamped with your writing assignments? We'll take the academic weight off your shoulders. We complete all our papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report upon request just to confirm.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

write 2 reply after read each of the discussion. each reply have to be at least 100 words.


I personally think that illegally downloading music is not morally right but I also agree that the majority of the population has participated in this at some point in time. I do however think by illegally downloading music you are empowering the artist to generate a greater revenue through merchandise and concert ticket sales, as this is something you cannot download from the internet. 

At the end of the day you are stealing from the record company which is immoral as stealing is frowned upon in todays society. I think with the new ways to listen to music however the illegal music downloading scene is changing. I have and did participate in a great deal of illegal downloading but I have not illegally downloaded a song for three years because of spoitify premium, youtube, and pandora. These companies are fairly new but are at least paying the record label and the artist for their work. In all reality artists do not generate that much money off of record sales anymore, artists typically make cents for every CD sold. 

I feel like people will continue to do illegal activities such as downloading music illegally because it is very easy to get away with. I would think that if more people could get away with stealing more people would do it. If the government or law creates a very strict way to crack down on illegal downloads, more people would stop. Because the risk is fairly low for illegal downloading at this time a lot of people will participate in such activities. 

2.Most artists continue to provide access to their content in ways that can easily be copied and reproduced electronically because that is the easiest way to disseminate their art and improve their exposure and profitability. The alternative to this practice would be to limit access to their music to a live format. Only offering live performances are more laborious and less profitable than producing an album and endlessly collecting profits from the life of its sales and official use. The relevant distinction is that current artists understand the limitations of their ability to protect their intellectual property given current technological realities and choose to allow access in these formats knowing that it will be used in a variety of ways. This is not so for artists established prior to the dawn of the information age. The means used to access the music or content is also a revenue stream for the artists and recording companies. An example of this would be the money that YouTube contributors are paid for the advertising that precedes their content. Artists and record companies knowingly provide access to these mediums alongside unauthorized content and are compensated for it. This discussion also needs to define how the artist is truly being compensated. Although the artist may not be paid for the access to their content they are exposed to future potential customers they may attend their concert or buy future content. There is value in this exposure to potential customers in much the same way that a corporations value is dependent on not just the numbers that provide ate year end but the familiarity and esteem held in their brand. Familiarity and Brand value is difficult to convert to a dollar value, but artists should not expect to be compensated as previous generations did and reap the benefits that todays technology has provided them.

We offer CUSTOM-WRITTEN, CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL, and PRIVATE writing services. Kindly click on the ORDER NOW button to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 10% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE10

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper