| NEWS |
  
 |
| FEATURES |
| ENTERTAINMENT |
  
|
| COLUMNS |
     |
| CONTACT US |
|
| HOW TO SUBMIT |
|
|
| BACK ISSUES |
|
|
A forum for Princeton residents to express opinions about local and national issues
Question of the Week: What do you think about the online sharing of copyrighted material, such as music?
"I think the RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America] deserves what they get for so many years of fixing prices. It's about time somebody takes it to them. They could offer music for far less, individual songs. That would probably work better than suing their fans. Most musicians don't end up getting any royalties from the music anyway."
– Joe Valentino, Engineering Quad, Princeton University
"It definitely affects the bands you want to listen to. If you were a true supporter of a band, you would probably go out and buy their merchandise. But then again, I'm a true supporter of the bands I listen to, and I'll still go download their music, so that kind of makes me a hypocrite. Maybe [there should be] a small fee for downloading certain things, to reimburse some of the people spending their time and energy on the music. They should get something back."
– Benjamin Silva, Madison Street
"My personal feeling is that the recording industry isn't taking the right approach in trying to deter people from doing that. I think that the approach that Apple music is taking in allowing people to buy singles for 99 cents apiece would be a lot more powerful for people. I don't want to pay $20 for an album from which maybe I only want one song anyway."
– Paru Deshpande, Halsey Court
"It's nice sometimes to be able to hear some of [the songs]. When you are going to buy a CD, you may not always go in and get it without knowing the songs on it. On the other hand, you think about the musicians earning money on that. It's their right to have a fee on that. There should be some limitation on this, but it shouldn't be totally forbidden."
– Sibel Korkut, Faculty Road
