Were they wrong in thinking that though? Since we have all now become part of this new age in music where whole albums can be grabbed in the blink of an eye from a website, did handing out free music really infringe on people's rights and freedoms? Did they believe that it was similar to a virus being forcefully infiltrated in your music catalog?
There was a lot of questions to be asked that really had no answer. It was a matter of perspective. We get free music in a lot of different ways around the world. Play copies, free downloads, PWYC (pay what you can), online streams, free handouts, and many other forms are ways from labels and bands to share their music with you. The difference between all those forms listed above is a very simple concept...choice.
I get it though. U2 is a worldwide known band. They have some of the greatest singles in the history of music and have sold well over 150+ million records. They have 17+ million Facebook followers and expected a large percentage of fans to accept and enjoy the music. But someone like myself who respects U2 without listening to their music would take an issue to a company like Apple just making it a part of your catalog. It's not cool and feels a little more the recommendation of music. Of course fans had the option to delete the album from their phones and iTunes. I don't want this to turn into sour grapes and first world problems. But who's to say the next Beyonce, One Direction, or Nickelback album could be automatically uploaded to your list. As Christopher Hitchens (a man I reference to quite a bit) once said:
"I hope I've made it clear that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys and to play with them at home and hug them to themselves and so on and share them with other people who come around and play with the toys, so that's absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don't bring the toys to my house. Don't say my children must play with these toys. I'm not going to have any of that."
One of the main driving factors behind online music is choice and selection. Users wanted more choice when picking their daily playlist. Radio did great job of promoting new music, but fell short of free choice for folks (kind of how call-in requests helped guide radio stations).
In the end, I will choose what music I want to listen to. There are a lot of questions that come to mind that I am still trying to wrap my head around.
- Laws from Canada, US, or worldwide have any wrongdoing against invasion of privacy?
- Does terms and agreements of iTunes and Apple constitute the allowance of such behaviour?
- Will this continue? Will this be the new phase of marketing? Will this be adopted into mainstream culture?
- Will artists willingly release albums such as this in order to gain exposure for their labels/promotions?
- Do I foresee bands and artists that could and would do this based on past agreements with Apple or marketing such as this?
"But it highlights a vital aspect to the whole idea of music in the 21st century. What's also interesting is that Apple seem to have got off scot-free. No one's blaming them. Apple has done great things, but it has also contributed to the devaluation process." -Nick Mason (Pink Floyd)
No comments:
Post a Comment