Informative Essay: Should It Be Considered Downloading Music Without Pay?

As successful as musicians are, many believe downloading music without payment should not be considered stealing; due to the justification that artists already reel in large sums of money because of the exposure the act brings. In this competitive industry, “without exposure, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love.” (Ian), and downloading platforms such as, “Napster become the world’s greatest stocked record store - for free.” (Siegel). Thus, music acquired without a form of payment is beneficial for the artist, as it provides a revenue of new listeners, and extends their fanbase. For small scale artists in local areas, exposure essential to success in the music industry in order to thrive and grasp better connections. Similar

Although some may argue that artists are already rich and do not need to make more money, it does not take away from the fact that they are any less deserving of being credited for their creativity. Musician Joe Elliott applies the analogy, “Taking our music for free is no different than walking out of someone’s house with their TV set.” (Source A), as well as Neil Gallagher, Assistant Director of the FBI explains, “the music industry stands to lose a substantial amount of money.” (Source B). Likewise, not only do artists lose money, but the labels they are contracted with do as well. If fans truly wanted to support their favorite musicians, giving monetary credit where due conveys a sense of loyalty and support for the artist’s creative thought process; instead of committing a crime in order to escape the obstacle of payment. In a political sense, downloading music without a form of compensation for the artist results in the violation of the copyrighted law. According to the Copyright Law of the United States, section eleven of chapter ten states that any serial copying, or the duplication of a copyrighted musical work, violates the