Slashdot Mirror
Teens Don't Buy Legit MP3s Because They Can't?
iSeal writes "According to a recent study, 13-17 year olds are both the most likely to pirate music, and also the most likely to own a portable MP3 player. Yet, as this article goes on to say, the lack of credit card ownership prevents teens from buying music online. The author maintains that since regular record shops don't sell MP3s, or gift cards to places that do sell MP3s, its practically impossible for teens to buy legit MP3s on their own. From the article: 'If the only way to obtain music online continues to be through illegitimate means, then we are no better off than in the days of Napster.'" I'm not sure I agree with some of the conclusions here (you can buy iTunes cards at Walgreens), but it's an interesting discussion.
Even if teenagers had credit cards, I think teenagers would still more likely opt to illegally download mp3s just because it's "illegal", therefore it's cool to do so.
In the US, I have noticed a trend since the 60s and 70s to make more "normal" things illegal, and it makes the tension between the system and the government and the people very high. Abraham Lincoln said it best:
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things
that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
Which was then followed up by HS Thompson:
"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."
So much is illegal, but its not "that illegal", and that is crap. In societies where sex, alcohol, and drugs don't have these insane and intense laws and taboos against them, they do less of them than here. In societies where pornography and nudity are more tolerated, they have much less rape, child abuse, and teenage pregnancies than we do. In societies where drugs are legal, they do less of them than we do. And the legal consequences keep getting more severe here.
Back to MP3s, I think its completely stupid that after 10 years of them being around that its still basically illegal to get them. I just got an iPod, and nobody told me that I couldn't just put MP3s on it. What Apple did, was pretty slick to appease the record business, but its a PITA that I have to go through hoops to put my legal MP3s on it from multiple computers. Honestly, if I knew this from the beginning I wouldn't have bought it. I will never buy "legal" MP3s from "legit" sources, because my freedoms will be limited even more. Instead, my plan for new music is to buy used CDs, rip them, and sell them back. And even that takes a bunch of silly effort. I have so much music, and its a pain to manage it between my home, my car, and work, and elsewhere.
Yes, it is very good to expound the virtues of budgeting, especially (I think) to young Americans. However, you must understand that the concept of budgeting is innately obscured when the ownership of an item not well defined. I'm sure you believe that the artist or the record company holds exclusive ownership of a CD, as that's what it says on the paper documents those parties've hard arranged. The problem is, digital content is infinitely duplicable!
If you purchase a car, and it's sitting in your driveway, I would have a very hard time convincing myself that it is also mine. If, however, you zap that car with a ray gun, making an exact copy of it, and offer it to me, it becomes more difficult for me to resist believing I can own it, too, as it is an item separate from yours (though identical in likeness). The fact that you bought it means it's yours, and the fact that you then offered me something derived of it implies that I may take it without informing the builder of the car, because you own the car--you aren't just "leasing" it; you gave money and need never give the car back.
Another example, addressing your budgeting argument: Johnny likes to cook, but he also likes to decorate his house with flowers. If he spends all his money on food to practice his cooking, then he won't have any left to buy flowers from the florist. Perhaps, though, just out his window, in his neighbor's lawn, is a garden full of gorgeous flowers. His neighbor bought the seeds from the florist and tended them until they grew into many pretty specimens. Perhaps Johnny could lean out the window and dig up just one flower, to plant in his own yard, waiting for it to be properly pollinated and then reproduce into his own lush garden. The likelihood of this "perpetration" (as I suspect you'd call it) increases proportionally with the neighbor's acquiescence to Johnny's plundering.
This means that in order for this to stop, one shouldn't be scolding Johnny, but the neighbor, for not respecting the florist's hegemony in dispensing the ability to culture plants.
Music is a cultural force, and the people, not the corporations, own culture. I am not defending ripping off artists, but I am suggesting that you examine your notion of "ownership" of intellectual property. There was a time when it was a magnificent compliment to have one's ideas reproduced in another's work (think classical Greece), and don't act like monetary gain was the motive. Perhaps the difficulty we're having now is that the bands making music today are doing it for entertainment rather than for artistic purposes. The internet is here, and social networking hasn't been, perhaps never can be, documented in its fullest extent; the record companies are no longer necessary. I want to experience music in the social environment of the internet, then electronically send money directly to those who created it. This means that I could download Britney Spears if I wanted, but you know what? I wouldn't pay for it. That awesome obscure metal band, though, that I think understands all I love about heavy metal? I could PayPal them $50, a hell of a lot more than they'd get from a regular CD purchase. Money should be used only to support what one wants to see more of, at least when it comes to art. Record companies fear the transition to such an economic model, but they know that people wouldn't shell out the big bucks for cookie cutter bands and trashy entertainment. Integrity would rule, and the record companies can't capitalize on that, because they work on exploiting the current economic system, that demands money before experiencing the art.
Also, if you don't believe people would spend money like this, zero dollars for some things, and fifty for others, then you haven't found an artist you truly love, and that's sad.