Should downloading music for free be considered as criminal activity? The logical answer is YES but a portion of the population have downloaded or burned music for free. In most cases we know or are these people and I doubt we would label them or ourselves as criminals. For most listeners, we don't care how we get our music, just as long as we get it. There are copyrights and acts protecting the rights of music labels and musician/artists from illegal file sharing. But who is really getting hurt? Most people would say that musicians take a hit but it's actually quite the opposite.
In a nutshell, the traditional way of distributing music goes in this manner: musicians make the music while the record label will provide the money upfront for studio time and distribution. A significant amount of money is invested but the labels are banking that the musicians will become big and sell a lot of albums. The amount sold will dictate the record labels profits. However, on the flip side, musicians only get a small fraction of these profits. Their earnings are dependent on them performing in live venues or to "tour". (Looking at prominent musicians/artists' touring schedule, it appears that they perform every other night.)
Based at that information it is no surprise that the industry is opposed to internet music downloading. If a certain album is downloaded for free, in theory it is detracting from record sales. Thus their investment was a waste. As for the musicians, it's a matter of ethics. Some artists will say that is wrong because of general principle, while others will have a liberal point of view. They will argue that free file sharing is a method of marketing/advertising. It helps get their name out which results into a larger fan base.
Yet, it's not all peaches and cream for some artists. Some argue that touring is not a reliable source of income because it is hard to find "gigs". Additionally, the increasing costs of travel and accommodations do not make it easier.
Consequently, free file sharing has to be restricted. If people are allowed to file share with not costs where does it end? If the musician/artists are smart the internet and technology helps them in two ways: distributing through the internet and producing music with readily available software. Basically they have full control of their music and the manner in which it is distributed. The internet and MySpace have created an abundance of "indie" artists who are reaping the benefits from the internet.
At the same time labels have to embrace the internet. It is another avenue for revenue and compared to traditional methods of distribution, the music is easily accessible. In the present, music labels are finding new ways to distribute music and entice customers. Partnering up with internet companies which allow customers to stream a predetermined amount of music for free each month has proven to be successful for cetain record labels in the UK. Research has shown that customers are still willing to pay for an album in support of their favorite artist(s). Regardless if they are able to obtain the album for free.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, released in 1967 is a film that addresses interracial marriages in the 60’s. The film was three years removed from the Civil Rights Act, which granted African-Americans basic civil rights. Stanley Kramer, one of Hollywood's most prominent liberal moviemakers produced and directed the film. He understood the significance of the movie because at the time of production it was still illegal to have interracial marriages in 14 states. Consequently, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner coincided with two significant events that shaped the nation’s political and cultural atmosphere: the Loving v. Virginia case ruling, which determined interracial marriage laws were constitutional, and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is an important film because it shows social climates in the United States progressing after the Civil Rights Act. But it also emphasizes the struggle to eliminate the embedded social prejudices and views of racial differences in American Society.
John Prentice (Sydney Poitier) and Joanna “Joey” Drayton (Katharine Houghton) are the young interracial couple who meet in Hawaii and within a ten-day period fall in love and become engaged. However, they do not inform their parents of the decision, because they feared opposition. Joey Drayton is a young Caucasian woman with affluent parents that live in San Francisco. Meanwhile, John Prentice is perfect groom: polite, handsome, and an internationally renowned doctor who happens to be African-American. Joey is ecstatic in introducing her fiancée to her parents (played by Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) before he leaves the country on assignment. John and Joey visit her parents for dinner and have also invited John’s parents who fly up from Los Angeles to join them. Joey believes that her parents will not object to her decision because they raised her on liberal principles that advocated for civil rights and an end to discrimination. Her parents’ beliefs are put to the test when they meet John.
The film is not centered on the relationship between John and Joey; the audience rarely sees the couple share a scene together by themselves. John and Joey’s roles are used as a backdrop for the beliefs held by the supporting characters and their reactions to the couple’s decision. Both John and Joey’s parents are in initial shock when they receive the news of the couple’s engagement. The mothers are more empathetic and reflect when they fell in love. The mothers come to support the couple’s decision. Meanwhile, the fathers embody stereotypical male traits (at that time) and are stubborn with their beliefs and ways. Furthermore, their spouses’ opinions appear to have little meaning to them. Their reluctance comes from the racial environment in which they grew up in. Spencer Tracy plays Matt Drayton, the grumpy old father that is set in his traditional ways. Throughout the film, Matt is under harsh criticism by the supporting characters. The interaction between Matt and Christina Drayton seems genuine, their arguing seem believable and their concern for their daughter’s abrupt decision is an example of most parents’ reactions at the time. Sidney Poitier’s character, Dr. John Prentice is another interesting aspect of the film because Kramer intentionally crafts John as the perfect groom. John’s “imperfection” is being an African-American male.
It would have been more intriguing to see more dialogue between Joey and John because it was hard to believe that they fell passionately in love in the amazing span of ten days. In the film, they often seem like two separate entities, not as a couple. John Prentice was simple and static in comparison to Matt Drayton. Poitier’s defining moment within the movie is when John’s character confronts his father. Both engage in an intense argument, the father is adamantly opposed to his son’s decision and points out that his marriage would be illegal in 16 states. This scene in the film, underlines the views most Americans had after the Civil Rights of 1964. The film seems outdated to 20 something year olds because interracial marriages are generally accepted and seen in the media, school, and in our families. The film is significant because it illustrates the complexity of accepting interracial marriages in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement. Despite the fact that the Civil Rights Act was passed 3 years earlier, many Americans were still adjusting to accept racial differences in their own personal lives.
John Prentice (Sydney Poitier) and Joanna “Joey” Drayton (Katharine Houghton) are the young interracial couple who meet in Hawaii and within a ten-day period fall in love and become engaged. However, they do not inform their parents of the decision, because they feared opposition. Joey Drayton is a young Caucasian woman with affluent parents that live in San Francisco. Meanwhile, John Prentice is perfect groom: polite, handsome, and an internationally renowned doctor who happens to be African-American. Joey is ecstatic in introducing her fiancée to her parents (played by Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) before he leaves the country on assignment. John and Joey visit her parents for dinner and have also invited John’s parents who fly up from Los Angeles to join them. Joey believes that her parents will not object to her decision because they raised her on liberal principles that advocated for civil rights and an end to discrimination. Her parents’ beliefs are put to the test when they meet John.
The film is not centered on the relationship between John and Joey; the audience rarely sees the couple share a scene together by themselves. John and Joey’s roles are used as a backdrop for the beliefs held by the supporting characters and their reactions to the couple’s decision. Both John and Joey’s parents are in initial shock when they receive the news of the couple’s engagement. The mothers are more empathetic and reflect when they fell in love. The mothers come to support the couple’s decision. Meanwhile, the fathers embody stereotypical male traits (at that time) and are stubborn with their beliefs and ways. Furthermore, their spouses’ opinions appear to have little meaning to them. Their reluctance comes from the racial environment in which they grew up in. Spencer Tracy plays Matt Drayton, the grumpy old father that is set in his traditional ways. Throughout the film, Matt is under harsh criticism by the supporting characters. The interaction between Matt and Christina Drayton seems genuine, their arguing seem believable and their concern for their daughter’s abrupt decision is an example of most parents’ reactions at the time. Sidney Poitier’s character, Dr. John Prentice is another interesting aspect of the film because Kramer intentionally crafts John as the perfect groom. John’s “imperfection” is being an African-American male.
It would have been more intriguing to see more dialogue between Joey and John because it was hard to believe that they fell passionately in love in the amazing span of ten days. In the film, they often seem like two separate entities, not as a couple. John Prentice was simple and static in comparison to Matt Drayton. Poitier’s defining moment within the movie is when John’s character confronts his father. Both engage in an intense argument, the father is adamantly opposed to his son’s decision and points out that his marriage would be illegal in 16 states. This scene in the film, underlines the views most Americans had after the Civil Rights of 1964. The film seems outdated to 20 something year olds because interracial marriages are generally accepted and seen in the media, school, and in our families. The film is significant because it illustrates the complexity of accepting interracial marriages in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement. Despite the fact that the Civil Rights Act was passed 3 years earlier, many Americans were still adjusting to accept racial differences in their own personal lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)