stivo;842279956 said:
It's a bullshit argument.
1) The greatest music has always been made by musicians who weren't doing it for the money -- think Jazz, Bluegrass, The Blues, Punk Rock, etc. Once money has entered the creative process, the soul of any music has disappeared.
2) Throughout history, musicians have almost never been rewarded financially, except for a very small time in recent history. The idea that there was or should be money in music is a modern invention. This has never stopped great musicians from making great music.
3) Record companies have a long history of being predatory and exploitative of musicians. They have corrupted and destroyed every great musical movement that musicians have ever produced.
4) Who can't afford to make music? Dirt poor blues musicians made music, homeless punk rockers made music, teenagers make music on their allowance, buskers on the corner make music.
5) If he's listening to music that sounds like it was crafted from a soulless recipe, he's clueless about what's out there. Musicians are making live, passionate, amazing music at cafes, bars, and venues all over the Bay Area and around the country. Where the heck is this dude going that he can't find them? And I'm talking real musicians who are making music out of love for making music, who are playing together, who are creative, who are using real instruments, etc.
6) All Joe Walsh has to do is turn on Kalx (Cal's radio station) and he will find an eternity of music that meets none of his stereotypes. Go Bears!
So are you arguing against Intellectual Property rights altogether, or just as they pertain to music? Should authors not expect remuneration for their written works? Just because book publishers may take advantage of writers is no justification for writers' works to be ripped off and downloaded for free.
I'm pretty surprised many on this board agree with your sentiments, given the often right-leaning political viewpoint found here. I agree that free markets should reward high achievers. I want my pilot and surgeon to be well educated and experienced. I wouldn't expect him or her to devote the time and energy needed to excel in their profession if there were no future reward. In other words, you get what you pay for.
If you do not reward accordingly, you get less people with talent willing to work for pennies. Otherwise, you're just discouraging talent from reaching its full potential. How many Mozarts never composed due to poverty or a lack of ability to be paid for their genius? We'll obviously never know. But I'm pretty sure if you reward creative genius, you'll get more of it.
After watching "Downloaded," I realize how much of a world-changer Apple was with Itunes. Sure, free music is great. But if it all becomes free, we aren't encouraging those with talent to pursue their passion. They become accountants instead to pay the mortgage and bills.