Down loading music is the act of transferring of a song from the internet to the user’s computer. Going by the above description, it simply means one can access the copyright without paying anything or without the owner’s permission. The habit is very popular with some of the firms that sell music on line being iTunes store, marketplace among others. Although the services are paid for it sometimes comes with some restrictions (Levine, 23). Downloading of music has grown lately and it has become a lucrative business in the United States. In 2006, it is estimated that, the traders made $2 billion in over forty nations in the world. This was a relative representation of the world music in the market. Although this practice has been there for many years, the act of sharing files exclusively for music was brought in the limelight in 1999. Napster which is credited with the idea brought transition in the world of music.
Although the copyrights are legal, the musicians have to be paid for the downloaded stuff (Levine, 56). With all the popularity, Napster was always being criticized by many who saw it as a joint of the only popular music that belonged to affluent singers. To add on the history of downloading, the demise of Napster came following the allegations that it was involved in illegal practices on the same. This gave room for other file sharing companies which took over the market. In this essay, the focus will majorly be on how downloading of music is a crime because it violates authors copyright. It will attempt to show the reader why downloading of music is not good and should be banned without giving it a second thought. On the other hand the essay will also argue for the reason why downloading is not a bad idea.
To begin with, music downloading is not a bad idea as it promotes technology and the artist in question. This trend is not bad and many are indeed happy because accessing as many songs as possible right in the house is not a bad idea. However, with the illegal downloading of music becoming popular, many reasons have come on the surface to explain. When Napster was accused of promoting this illegal act, many were on the defensive saying that the songs which they were downloading was already what they were having and it was only another way of securing a copy just incase the discs were destroyed. These claims are even today being use by people to justify their acts (Levine, 76). For whatever reason given, downloading of music using p2p or any other way just sweeps the carpet several facts. To begin with, downloading any substance that the copyrights do not permit is stealing. The law does not allow this and this does not apply to music alone but to all materials. The act is evil and should not be allowed no matter what.
When one is downloading the music from the internet, a fee comes with it. It is also required that one can pay monthly to access the service. In that regard, the musician is paid his share. So it is not illegal in any way. However the act is illegal if the cost met by the author is anything to go by. For music to be processed and put for display in the internet, the artist has normally spent a fortune. The recording of album and the videos that come with it are very costly. The author does this with an aim of selling the music to the interested people in order to get compensated for his work. If the music does not again sell owing to illegal downloading will mean the credibility of production house is put at stake (Levine, 84). Equally on risk is the talent of the author in question. It would be absurd for a person to think that he or she can just access the internet and download the latest hit in the market and keep it all to oneself in the computer. The act of downloading music is just sucking and not something to be taken lightly. People should learn to pay for services of something good if for sure they are happy about it. A shortcut of downloading the work of art from the internet should be dealt with accordingly.
It is not fair for somebody to be sued in a court for downloading music from the internet. The one downloading the music is very innocent and if anything the owner of the website is the one to blame and not the customer. Such cries have always fallen on deaf ears and to prove further that downloading is illegal; the authority has always taken action against this action. Some lawsuits on the same have been successful and justice has been served. Napster became a victim and had to be shut after paying for all the damages it had caused the music industry. This was after it had been fund guilty of violating copyrights. This is a prove that, the effects of down loading are far reaching and the act itself is illegal and therefore should not be given a chance (Shaw & Mercer, 329). The act of downloading has equally found some citizens as young as twelve year old guilty of an illegal act and have dearly paid for their actions. In a recent case on the same, a student was found guilty and was required to pay $675,000 as a fine. The fine is not only enormous but painful something which could have been easily avoided. This acts as a prove that downloading is illegal right form the word go.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Eircom, an organization is against the act of people sharing music online and has come up with tough measures to curb this. The organization warned all those with this bad habit to cease or face termination of their internet connection. The firm has even taken it upon itself to send messages of warning to all those taking copyrights for granted. Just to show how serious this is, if the company learns that one has violated this for three times, they are basically left with no choice but to terminate their services (Shaw & Mercer, 333). The company management was for the idea that the act is illegal and should not be given an opportunity they went ahead to argue that, this would be an effective way because if all other internet providers were to follow the same the offenders would stop immediately. Putting this into consideration, it is just another prove that downloading is illegal and should be stopped once and for all. Supporting this, I would say it simply would ensure those enjoying music of others illegally do not have a conducive environment for doing so. If all were to follow the steps of Eircom, the music industry would surely grow (Shaw & Mercer, 337).
Down loading music is helping the industry to grow further. This is what those who down load music from the internet argue. However, it is argued that downloading is bad because of the negative effects it has on the music industry as a whole. When the authors spend their time to write and compose songs they are indeed exploiting their talents. Through this, the music industry is kept on its feet and offer jobs to thousands of citizens directly and indirectly. Putting this into consideration, it is evident that, allowing downloading of music will be a slap on the face of the music industry. The talent of musicians will never be appreciated. It would be advisable for people to perceive music as a career and no other way about it. Illegal downloading is denying so many writers the credit they deserve for their good wok. With the above remarks, downloading of music should be treated as a crime which is even worse than drug trafficking given that it is affecting so many artists.
Still on the same argument, music contributes a relative percentage to the country’s economy. If this is anything to go by, down loading the music means one has not paid for it. Going by that, the economy is therefore held at stake. If all were to purchase it from reliable sources, the economy would grow and all would benefit. Downloading therefore is a way of people getting easy and for free what they have not worked for at the expense of the owners and the economy (Shaw & Mercer, 343). This act should therefore be taken with that seriousness of vandalizing country’s systems and should be treated with a degree equivalent to that of treason. For the simple fact that the economy is the country’s backbone of supporting all its activities, any act threatening this should therefore be taken seriously. This is to mean that, downloading falls under this category. Anything less would be a denial of justice. Those who download music feel they also contribute towards the developing of the economy. They feel that they do not threaten the economy but help in building it.
Book The Best Top Expert at our service
Your order will be assigned to the most experienced writer in the relevant discipline. The highly demanded expert, one of our top-30 writers with the highest rate among the customers.Hire a TOP writer for $10.95
Finally, children should be warned because they have taken downloading as a fun and as a hobby. There is no fun in destroying what has taken people money and time to build. Destruction does not know age. In that respect, all are guilty of an illegal act and an action should be taken against them. The supreme court of United States deduces that ignorant of the law is no defense. In that respect, teenagers who have been found with such mistakes of downloading music without permission have been slapped with fines to teach them a lesson or two on the same. The court seems to understand just how far people can get in ruining this industry which provides a living to many in the United States. On the other hand, people who see downloading as a good idea argue that they have paid for the service and therefore the court has no right to take action against them.
In conclusion, the technology that brought the idea of downloading music is not to blame for all what is happening. It would be advisable for people to own it up and be responsible enough to understand that illegal downloading is not good. It is simply stealing from the owner what is rightfully his. Instead of all that, people should make it a habit to going to the music shops and purchase the album legally. It might save you a jail sentence and a heavy fine. Always remember downloading of music and any other material is illegal (Shaw & Mercer, 347).