Actually, they are probably reasoning that cigarette and alcohol use are major costs to taxpayers.
Should taxpayers who don't smoke or drink be burdened with the enormous costs of medical care, criminal prosecutions, funerals, diminished productivity, and other directly associated expenses created by smokers and drinkers?
Instead of complaining about paying a disproportionate share, maybe they should be grateful that they don't have to foot the entire bill.
Yes, but as we know, and unfortunately, once a musician transfers (aka "sells") the copyright the work is now technically The Corporation's property. And they will, of course, want the government to enforce the law and protect their investment.
It's ripe for abuse, far from a pefrect system, but one which I think needs to get back on track, or on a better track, rather than being derailed or brought to a screeching halt.
IMHO, musicians shouldn't give music away. IMHO, what they should do is charge a varying price. My biz model would be to charge nothing or close to nothing if you are fighting in Iraq, doctoring in Haiti, teaching in West Baltimore, or other rather thankless but noble activities. And to charge $50 per song if you are selling tobacco, drugs, kiddie porn, or anything else I disapprove of. Those wouldn't be the only two prices. Lots of levels in between, and lots of thought put into the specifics. But if people in other professions followed suit, eventually there would be real impact and the impact would be that the common man (read, "poor man") would have as much power as the rich man. Like it's supposed to be in a democracy.
If you don't charge, you are basically willfully giving up your power. Abdicating the throne. You would then have no right to complain about anything. IMHO, giving away your gift, your voice, is like castrating yourself. It's not just inadvisable, it's highly irresponsible. Future generations are depending on us to save the planet, bro. If we don't do it, who will? The record companies?
PS The above business model is my intellectual property but you are more than welcome to copy it. Please do! Let's start a movement!
Thank you for answering. I appreciate that you stepped up because I really wanted to know.
Do you really think that an artist who felt he was ripped off would lobby for a draconian laws that would prevent legal activity? I think that is highly unlikely. As well as insulting. I am quite sure that most artists are intelligent, well-meaning people that would lobby for progressive, fair laws that would protect the rights of all concerned, to every degree possible.
Record companies, no doubt, are far less altruistic. Correction, not altruistic at all. Correction: They suhkk bawlz.
OK, I am fine with your objections to "cartels". If "a large group" (or more accurately, a small group with a large amount of money) wants to control "the pipepline" and puts profits at odds with the general public's interests, that is wrong, and I am just as much against that as you are.
Let's not confuse that with the spirit of IP. The spirit of IP protection is to respect/honor/value the work of talented, creative people just as much as we respect/honor/value work done in other fields.
Is it important to make sure that corporate interests do not hijack IP law and make it self-serving? By all means.
But that does not automatically mean abolition. Total abolition of IP law might be just as bad as a twisted IP law which essentially grants monopolies to the financial sector, to the detriment of innovation and the public.
Crafting laws requires thought, effort, creativity, cooperation, and perhaps a degree of compromise. In short, it requires intelligent input from all affected parties.
Unilaterally declaring that music should be as free as the air we breathe is not intelligent input.
Nor is name-calling.
This forum can be used for constructive debate only if their is willingness of the participants to engage in such, rather than merely promote an agenda.
Now that you have some understanding of what I object to, let's address your stated objection:
"The cartel has...attempted to have the technology made illegal".
"The cartel" may have, at one point, tried to get courts to criminalize P2P technology itself, but there is not a jurisdiction on earth that would buy that argument in this day and age. You probably weren't trying to imply that that is their current agenda.
Your beef is probably that "the cartel" is trying to profit obscenely by acting as an intermediary between artist and audience.
I get that, and I think most artists and audiences do.
I don't understand why free music advocates don't realize that stance is counterproductive to efforts to draft a fair use policy.
Would you not mind if someone hijacked a creation or concept that you had painstakingly refined, toiled over for a long time?
You are fine with them sending their kids to college with the $$$ that could have/should have paid for your kids school?
You are perfectly happy that you and the hijacker will escort a woman out of a club at last call and she will see his 2010 Mercedes and go home with him and give him incredible sex and you will go home and jerk off...
Are you really an artist/creator/inventor, or are you like an untalented American Idol hopeful who wasn't chosen and therefore decided the whole system is crooked?
I am saying that Mike's willingness to put his IP in public domain does not mean others should be forced to.
If a musician, fashion designer, painter, author wishes to restrict copying of their work, because they feel they will profit more, or for any other motive, they should have they right. It's THEIR work.
Whether that backfires or not for the producer, you the consumer, should not have any problem with it.
In fact, mass distribution of the Mona Lisa probably wouldn't be a problem for DaVinci --it likely wouldn't devalue the original. But it should be DaVinci's choice.
If Metallica doesn't want their album distributed thru P2P, that should be their choice, also. Whether it is good for them or not.
The anti-copyright articles and posts here are just as extremist. Very disrespectful, radical, completely nonconstructive. If you would treat people like people, realize that all they want is to make a legal living, and try to work towards solution, that would be constructive and appreciated.
Granted, there are big money interests that do not play fair and they deserve all of your animosity. They do not care if they nurture or stifle creativity and innovation. (typically their strategy is to purchase the fruits of creation/innovation and then spoon-feed it to the public as slowly as possible) Only their bottom line matters, and they are rather ruthless in pursuit of profit.
Nonetheless, big business interests and the interests of individual artists, musicians, innovators and inventors are far from one and the same.
I am a creator/inventor, and I despise being lumped together under the same umbrella as big business. Big business is my adversary and yours. We (consumers and innovators) should be ganging up on them.
But by trying to obtain the fruits of my labor as cheaply as possible, you are actually playing right into the hands of Big$$$, and serving their interests.
Which means I end up with enemies on both ends of the spectrum.
Good data on the history. Elvis C losing out to TOH is definitely a crime! He is a master craftsman. I put him right up with S. Wonder in creating classic melodies that "sound like they were already there, and the artist just uncovered them".
I also agree that today's music biz "is what it is" ..not so much better or worse, just different.
If I were to gripe, I would be poster child for the title of the article. :)