I agree that music is art, but I believe Ulrich is wrong. Ulrich is basically telling people you have to pay in order to listen to music. Putting music up for purchase is a commodity. Anyone should have the right to view a piece of artwork, unless they fully purchase the work themselves so only they can see it, but that usually requires thousands of dollars. When you force people to pay for a song, is it really art anymore? If you don’t let people enjoy the content, is it just something to sell?
I know many artists would love to get paid for their work, and I understand that, myself being a visual artist. In the music industry, when you purchase a song, where does the money really go to? If you are an independent band, the money usually goes straight to the artist since they don’t fall under a record label. But for other famous bands that are? The money certainly doesn’t go to the band. For instance, one of my favourite bands 30 Seconds to Mars, led by the singer Jared Leto, was sued by their former label, Virgin for $30 million because they failed to produce three songs under their contract in 1999. Leto’s band has sold over 2 million records at the time, but the band has never been paid any royalties. Their former label claimed that they were $1.4 million in debt, and that their next record will be used to pay that debt. I don’t find that very fair to the artists. Record labels are the ones that get all the money, not the artists. Musicians work hard to produce music for the enjoyment of others, but their labels love the leech off them. I do believe piracy hurts, but what is the use if the artists don’t get the money themselves? Record labels are using their music as a commodity. Many people cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars to fill up their MP3s with their favourite music, and some who are more passionate about music don’t want to give their money to