Wonderful, more judging, and yes, by doing that, I judge that someone is JUDGING... I'm not passing comment on their moral character, especially not tangentally based on the latest in a long line of books that say they will (or will enable you to) x, y, z. That will just be more dead trees and failed dreams when it all comes down to it. Change the world my hairy ass, but that is of course just an opinion, and if I put smilies after it, it's not offensive, eh anti? , as it's meant in love, and a sincere hope you will find happiness in your life. Chicken Soup for the Soul tells me every one has good inside, so it MUST be true...
HOWEVER, this was about music piracy...
Now, I do not claim to have the 'truth' on this, just opinions.
H_S, you really have not addressed the issue that the copyright laws are a legal inheritance, which is my main point, so for all the skechiness of my arguement or otherwise, you've not fully defended your stance. The laws were framed for set circumstances and the current circumstances not only were not foreseen when these laws were framed, the laws as they exist now are as void as the law about red flags in front of cars is.
Music has been transfered without copyright since the dawn of time.
People would teach each other songs.
This still happens, and no one would dream of trying to make people pay copyright.
Because it is impossible to enforce. They would if they could.
When it became possible to distribute music in sheet form in any quantity, laws were bought in to reflect that technological advance. Printing was a controlable process.
When it became possible to record music and play it later through some means, laws were bought in to reflect that technological advance. Pressing was a controlable process.
When the Compact Cassette began gaining market penetration, we were assured this was the "Death of Music" ©. It was not. Despite the fact that tape duping is not a controllable process, the music industry survived, indeed went from strength to strength.
Similarly, the "Entire Television Industry was Doomed" © because of the VHS tape. Interestingly, people buy in shops sets of material for convenience and the added value of their packaging etc., even though they would be able to tape the same programs live from air. The TV industry was not doomed.
DAT was the "Death of Music" ©, and got legislated into a hole in the ground. The publishing companies controlled the medium by levy.
MiniDisc, well, that is also the "Death of Music" ©, but has never been that much of a problem.
CD-R has been around a few years now and has shown no signs of being the "Death of Music" ©. Besides, it is uncontrollable.
P2P is also, apparently the "Death of Music" ©. But given how the industries with vested interests in the copyright have adapted and survived all these deaths up to now, I'm not overly excited. P2P and digital copies are utterly uncontrollable, especially if you allow that the best digital copyright protection can be defeated by taking the headphone out of the CD-ROM of your PC and sticking it into the line in of your soundcard. Also, the control of these technologies would cost people other than those who benefit fom the control of these technologies money: ISPs etc.
But there is no proof that P2P will be the "Death of Music" ©, despite the Cassandras protecting their business models, as just like all the years the WTBTS said were going to be the end, all the times the music industry has claimed the "Death of Music" © is near, it has never come to pass. I have an amusing little image in my head of the inventor of paper being assailed by an angry musician seeking to protect his copyright. To me, trying to make P2P disappear is that silly.
Even though through technological magic a performance is being captured, rather than a score being learnt as in my first example, the inability to control is the key here, just as it was with Compact Cassette and VHS.
Now, big artists will lose proportionately more from the business model changes that will have to happen. Ahhhhh. They have benefited from a golden period where hardcopies were not easily or accurately duplicable. That is gone, and they have to adapt. Same as any business.
Smaller artists will not be as affected, as if you use a P2P network you will realise that you can only really get a decent selection of songs by the big names, and that the music available is often that listened to by 'computer age' people; it's a demographically age shifted set with much repetition of some names and an absence or scarcity of others. It is not Tower Records.
In all, bands will be more original, as the marketing campaigns behind big produced bands will not be cost effective. Larger artists will have to tour more. Smaller artists will develop mechanisms to get their music out, get some money back-off it, and cut out the music companies until they get big enough for a music company to be a viable propositon. Hardcopies of music will be given added value; look at the latest Tori Amos CD as an example, big box, junk in it, access to content rich web site, lots of reasons to buy the media just like Friends boxed sets are bought by people who taped them when they were on.
Music will become cheaper, to fight the free digitialsiation; no one has ever seen a man selling photocopies of newspapers; it is not cost effective or convenient. If music companies come in with the right product at the right price, then they will protect their revenue. If they expect it to be wound back to 1999, they will be sorely disappointed.
Maybe I am being pragmatic rather than moral; yes, I can understand how musicians dislike their copyright being stolen... I write music, have entered local singer-songwriter contests, been in a tiny little band that did a few gigs... but that copyright is not a birthright, it was a method of extracting revenue that fitted the times and is now in need of review. To make moral rulings based on a law that has a sell-by date is to me illogical. This is also something I don't feel you've answered.
Now, unless you can demonstrate that there are valid reasons why it is impossible to reform the music industry business model, or that their are clear differences between the copyright consessions that Compact Cassettes and VHS forced and those that people are applying to P2P, I feel my arguement is valid (as I am sure you feel yours is valid), from the parameters that I deine (just as is the case with your arguement). You might disagree with my view, which is fine, but my opinions are based upon the uncontrollability of it, and the fact that businesses have to change with the times, why not the music industry, rather than on the moral arguement you seem to concentrate on, which I don't contend with but consider moot on grounds of unenforcability.
All the best.