Comment It makes me want to wish her a happy birthday (Score 2, Insightful) 1872
Happy Birthday Copyrighted
While a lot of people have been focusing on the RIAA's most recent doings, I am still writing an alternative to the Happy Birthday song, so I can legally and freely sing a ditty to wish someone Happy Birthday. The story of Happy Birthday shows the extreme end of how ridiculous and corrupt copyrighting music can be. I first became aware of the Happy Birthday copyrights, when a friend pointed out to me that restaurants no longer sang Happy Birthday. Looking into the history of Happy Birthday got me thinking about how we view recorded music. For this little girl Kazaa functioned as radio, something that everyone in the US has taken for granted. This, I believe, is fundamental to understanding why people download music.
Simply put, downloading music is illegal. However, instead of focusing on how they can sue everyone on earth, the RIAA should be looking into why people download instead of buy music.
People around the world have been exposed to free music since the turn of the century. The largest provider of free music has been the radio. Granted the radio pays for the music lists that it aires, which is paid for through advertising revenue. However, the end user does not pay to listen this music, except through listening to ads. People feel the desire to buy copies of this music, so that they can listen to it free of ads and at a higher quality level.
The advent of tape, introduced people to the idea of protecting their investment in music or creating custom mixes through the making of copies. Here is where the whole recording situation became sticky. No longer could the recording industries easily control people's access to high quality music. This problem did not turn out to be a significant issue, especially with the advent of CDs which offered people even higher quality listening.
Nowadays CDs are considered to be overpriced and digital radio stations offer CD quality music. MP3s offer better than FM quality music in a small compact format. Additionally there is more music available now than at any previous point in history. Music trends, largely dictated by radio and MTV, rise and fall faster than people can appreciate them.
This leads me to believe that we should focus on convincing people that their ROI is justified when they buy music. For instance, if you buy a CD, you gain access to a site that will allow you to download a variety of MP3, WMA, etc versions of the music on the CD in varying compressions and sizes, so that you can take your music with you anywhere you go. Make people feel that they are getting something better, by offering HD-CDs. Offer more singles and custom made CDs (pay based upon the song not the album). Offer more low quality MP3 versions of music (FM quality) for free, so people who want to buy an album know if they want to buy all of the tracks. If consumers were offered those options, maybe they wouldn't question the $10-$20 price tag on a CD.
People enjoy music, however if they cannot afford it or do not see the value in buying a CD, they will find a way to access that music. The RIAA cannot sue everyone who uses CDs, but they can change it so that people do not feel that free is better.
While a lot of people have been focusing on the RIAA's most recent doings, I am still writing an alternative to the Happy Birthday song, so I can legally and freely sing a ditty to wish someone Happy Birthday. The story of Happy Birthday shows the extreme end of how ridiculous and corrupt copyrighting music can be. I first became aware of the Happy Birthday copyrights, when a friend pointed out to me that restaurants no longer sang Happy Birthday. Looking into the history of Happy Birthday got me thinking about how we view recorded music. For this little girl Kazaa functioned as radio, something that everyone in the US has taken for granted. This, I believe, is fundamental to understanding why people download music.
Simply put, downloading music is illegal. However, instead of focusing on how they can sue everyone on earth, the RIAA should be looking into why people download instead of buy music.
People around the world have been exposed to free music since the turn of the century. The largest provider of free music has been the radio. Granted the radio pays for the music lists that it aires, which is paid for through advertising revenue. However, the end user does not pay to listen this music, except through listening to ads. People feel the desire to buy copies of this music, so that they can listen to it free of ads and at a higher quality level.
The advent of tape, introduced people to the idea of protecting their investment in music or creating custom mixes through the making of copies. Here is where the whole recording situation became sticky. No longer could the recording industries easily control people's access to high quality music. This problem did not turn out to be a significant issue, especially with the advent of CDs which offered people even higher quality listening.
Nowadays CDs are considered to be overpriced and digital radio stations offer CD quality music. MP3s offer better than FM quality music in a small compact format. Additionally there is more music available now than at any previous point in history. Music trends, largely dictated by radio and MTV, rise and fall faster than people can appreciate them.
This leads me to believe that we should focus on convincing people that their ROI is justified when they buy music. For instance, if you buy a CD, you gain access to a site that will allow you to download a variety of MP3, WMA, etc versions of the music on the CD in varying compressions and sizes, so that you can take your music with you anywhere you go. Make people feel that they are getting something better, by offering HD-CDs. Offer more singles and custom made CDs (pay based upon the song not the album). Offer more low quality MP3 versions of music (FM quality) for free, so people who want to buy an album know if they want to buy all of the tracks. If consumers were offered those options, maybe they wouldn't question the $10-$20 price tag on a CD.
People enjoy music, however if they cannot afford it or do not see the value in buying a CD, they will find a way to access that music. The RIAA cannot sue everyone who uses CDs, but they can change it so that people do not feel that free is better.
