“Basically, our goal is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. ” Author of foregoing statement is Larry Page, co-founder of Google. He is one of the main creators of the Internet who can impartially define its main purposes. It should be obvious, therefore, that this remarkable ‘virtual library’ is supposed to contain information and files easily available to all users whose life is now irrevocably affected by it.
There is however certain intricacy due to considerable number of people who misunderstand its main goals and strive for imposing as many confinements on file swappers as it is possible, especially when it comes to music files, currently easily accessible. Despite some serious reasons for outlaw the possibility of sharing tracks, I personally reckon that the distribution of music over the Internet should not be prohibited.
To start with, there is an abundance of various online music stores as well as portals on which a consumer has an opportunity to listen full compositions or even download them for free on a personal computer or iPod. It is certainly an excellent facility to those who live in remote corners of the world as well as indigent people. They may receive music from a virtual music community without buying whole CD whose price do not seem to tempt mediocre customer, quite the contrary, it deters him.
The prohibition of allotting music files can therefore pose an insurmountable obstacle to poorer music lovers. Other argument that is put forward by defenders of idea of prevalence of music is that it is through sharing that we develop a culture and advance humanity. Creative works like art or music are, at their core, about sharing with the others. They constitute musicians’ cogitation, reveal personalities as well as elucidate crucial issues of our world with use of such devices that others can admire and groove on, forming a part of culture as they are spread around.
Furthermore, a work of art likewise an invention become significant only when is shared with the world. Last but not least, while sharing files we do a favor to musicians whose songs we distribute. File swappers make musical compositions prevalent and thereby obviate a situation which is apparently the biggest danger to the artists. The latter are not apprehensive on account of somebody will steal their work but because nobody is ever going to hear and appreciate their work.
Moreover, underestimation of musician can contribute to his emotional breakdown. Many record industries make, however, any endeavor to convince organs of law to enact a bill prohibiting free distribution of music files over the Net. From their perspective sharing copyrighted works is a major setback to their development and causes drugging of their revenues. The issue is that they are not receiving their royalties because when we download a song for free neither the artists nor record companies receive a cent.
Consequently we deprive our idols of some extra money. It should be mentioned, notwithstanding, that bad publicity is simultaneously a good publicity and their success is a proof of that. In addition, if labels sincerely cared for artists they would comprehend that it is passing around music that make more fans. In conclusion, prohibition of the music distribution over the Internet should not be carried into effect. I, as music connoisseur, hold in high esteem the opportunity of having access to tracks that I have predilection for.
People like me certainly have a feeling that in some way they support their idols and give a kind of satisfaction. Even though it is in defiance of music industries, sharing files gives an evidence that we are a global village where we can search for online communities and interact with others that share the same interests and concerns. Expropriated from such convenience, a vast majority of us would not be able to broaden their horizons connected with exploring every little particle of a culture whose significant part is music.