After reading about three pages of the Do you think copying music to give away free, is okay? thread I got a really bad headache. I think it is more contributed to having to read off of the screen than to what was being discuessed, actually.
Anyhow, it got me wondering. How exactly should certain things/ideas be concidered? They were talking about music in particular. Many were saying that all you are buying, when you buy a CD, is data. Some said information, though I have always concidered information as something helpful to others in accomplishing other goals. It is difficult to see how a bunch of 1’s and 0’s (really they are microscopic notches or dots on a reflective surface) forming structures for recreating sound patters could be especially useful in producing something new. Insperation? Listening to anything could spark some form of inspiration.
I’m trying to figure out what exactly would be concidered art. Not art as in the intelectual sence, a work of creativity with the power to convey emostions or ideas. I more mean in a physical sence.
Artwork could be viewed freely, especially on the artist’s personal web-site. Painters want people to recognize their ability, so works are viewable. Of course, the actual physical painting is what is really concidered to have some monetary value. People pay big money for original art work.
I’m sort of wondering why music isn’t seen the same way. Wouldn’t a live concert be concidered where the musician’s real valuable work would be? In all actuality the majority of money a famous musician earns does come from live concerts. I cannot remember exactly the percentage, but I think it was near 80% of all profit (I may be wrong).
What I am saying is, wouldn’t a musician want people to listen to his/her work freely? I suppose there is the radio, of oppose to p2p file transfers. The problem with that is that rich recording studios are much more likely to have their music played on the radio. They pay stations large sums of money to play their music over and over again (I cannot exactly remember what the term is called, but I saw it on TV, I think it was 20/20). Normally it is the artists best work that is played too. It’s all about advertising and giving musicians loads of recognition. Wouldn’t it then be beneficial for people to download music? For recognition purposes? If somebody does record music off of the radio they would be getting the artist’s best music anyway. That is something anyone could easily do.
What about all of the not-so-famous musicians that very likely produce much better music? Wouldn’t it be good if someone could listen to his/her music for free? For recongnition? I’m a little weary about buying CD’s from musicians I’ve never even heared. It seems to be a risky way to spend money. Wouldn’t being able to listen to music before buying it be comparative to seeing a painting before purchasing that? Who would buy a painting without taking a look at it first? Or borrowing a book from the library before deciding to take a trip to the book store?
I don’t listen to music often, actually. There just seemes to be more controversy concerning music than anything else. Actually, the mentioning of books seems to bring out an interesting point. More money seems to be earned on music than writings, but they have always been availible for free at any local library. What about all the authors losing money from people reading their books without ever concidering to buy them?
Then there are people who think software should be free. That is a very interesting idea, and maybe should be the case with many applications. Some things are simply necessary. A computer needs an opperating system and several utilities. People like to play around with fun tools, such as graphics software, so they should be allowed the oppertunity.
Even still, as my personal opinion as a programmer, if I worked on a project for six months, or even maybe a couple years, and I made something truly unique from anything that currently exists (very unlikely) then, even though it doesn’t phycally exist, I would still want to get something back from my hard work. A lot of time and effort needs to be put into programming projects. As much, or more, effort and knowledge is needed than many other jobs. I’m not a very materialistic person, so I wouldn’t concider charging too much for anything.
Of course, there is a problem with this way of thinking too. The only way to make money would be to create the best, but big companies that already have a lot of money would be a lot more likely to accomplish such a task. Afterall, there would be more people working on the project.
Anything that exists only as bits and bytes on some storage device could easily be distributed for free by anyone. Does that make data, even if human generated, something impossible to really concider an actual sellable product? Or is it?
Maybe people are much to preoccupied by turning a profit. I know that I earlier said I would like to get something in return for my work. Many people think this way. I’m wondering if people just take it to much of an extreem - patenting portions of the human genome to restrict others from scientific research seems to come to mind. The writing of unnessarily buggy applications because people pay for features instead of stability also seems to bring out the extent of greed. Hey, lately there have been a bunch of business men trying to profit off of illegal actions.
Is that really how it is? People end up thinking too much about themselves instead of who the company is trying to serve? Instead of focusing on people’s health and well being, cooporations look to control genetic research for their own gain? Businesses buying software should lose unreasonable amounts of time and money so more software could be developed quicker? An individual can fool with the budget and lie about expences as long as he is never cought?
Maybe it doesn’t matter what anything is, because it all becomes, at one time or another, a profitable product. Rocks sold as pets. Wouldn’t it seem to make sence, for a more healthy environment, that others people should be concidered before one’s self? If so, then, of course, music, art, and software should have free forms. The motivation for trying to create the best would be for other’s benefit, instead of one’s own - to live to help others.
Man, I think I really got side-tracked with this. What happened? … What was the original point I was trying to make? Staring at the monitor for too long gives me a headache. I don’t really remember. Sorry if anything seems hard to understand.