Also, as I've pointed out many times, there is a difference between a "right to be paid" and a "right to a sale".
Yes, an artist has a right to make money off his work. However, he does not have a GUARANTEE of making money off his work.
Copying does NOT prevent him from making money. It merely removes a specific SALE from his revenue stream, just as if the sale were removed by someone simply deciding not to pay what he is charging for the item because it is considered too expensive and therefore deciding not to buy.
The fact that if he sold only one copy of his work, and then EVERYONE copied that one copy such that he never again made a sale from that work does not invalidate the fact that no one is OBLIGATED to buy his stuff if they don't value it at the price he is offering.
It's exactly the same situation as the following example:
If I buy a hammer, then loan it to my neighbor to complete some work of his, I have deprived the hammer manufacturer of a sale. But I have not STOLEN anything.
Even if I proceed to make in my home workshop an exact duplicate of the hammer I bought and then give it to my neighbor, I still have deprived the original hammer manufacturer of a sale, but I have not STOLEN anything.
If I were to make that hammer, mark it as having been made by the original manufacturer, and sell it as such, I have committed fraud in misrepresenting the manufacturer of the hammer. But I STILL haven't STOLEN anything. Theft and fraud are not the same thing, either.
So copying BY DEFINITION is not theft. The effect is merely to deny the producer a SALE, NOT to deny them any "right to make money".
Live (and "pre-recorded live") performance streamed over the Internet as a subscription service is where it's going. So once again we see the porn industry is leading and the music industry just doesn't get it.
Yes, someone can record, copy and distribute the stream, but your market is those people who want it and want it NOW, so they buy your stream (as long as it's reasonably priced.)
I've said for years now that the music artists should be setting up a studio with Internet streaming capability, do rehearsals a few times a week, then perform live for their fans on a weekly basis for a subscription. Reduces the need to do live tours, enables them to keep more in touch with their fans, and is more convenient and immediate than spending months producing and distributing CDs. Plus all the revenue, minus your promotion and bandwidth costs, go directly to the artist - no middleman.
This is the future of most performance industries. Eventually, even TV shows and movies could go this way, once computer generation of movies in a more or less real-time way at low cost is feasible. Write a script, lay out a storyboard, generate the product, stream it live on a subscription basis, rinse and repeat. With enough computer capability, which gets cheaper every year, it will be cost-effective to produce a major production what today would cost $100 million for maybe a million.
I remember reading a few years back about a female musician who played her music live over the Internet, audio only, periodically. She had something like 70,000 people listening to her broadcasts. You really can monetize something like that. You won't make the money Metallica made selling CDs, but you'll make a living.
with Gavin Bonnar, Sharon Corr's husband, who is a Belfast tort lawyer and rapidly against file sharing. Sharon, who is the violinist with The Corrs Irish rock group, has long been against file sharing. The Corrs themselves have been spokespersons for the European equivalent of the RIAA.
I had a couple long arguments with Gavin on Twitter - which is a bit hard to do in 140 characters! He had no new arguments, or any arguments at all basically, other than accusing file sharers of "theft, theft, theft" and complaining that file sharing is killing the industry and all the industry people he knows hate it. All of which, of course, simply isn't true.
There's no arguing with people who are fearful of their livelihood (or in his case, his wife's livelihood, since he's a rich tort lawyer himself.)
The problem with the "theft" argument is that the promoters don't realize that they're basically conflating the notion that they have a right to be compensated with the notion that they have a right to a SALE - which is not the same thing at all.
If I buy a hammer, then loan it to my neighbor to solve his problem, I have deprived the hammer manufacturer of a SALE. But I have NOT stolen his PROPERTY. He can still sell his property to someone else and be compensated. If everybody who buys a hammer loans it out, his business will be severely impacted. But is it theft? Hardly.
This is something nobody seems to comprehend. The issue of intellectual property is an attempt to extend the concept of contract law over the more basic concept of property. It is by definition an attempt to control the behavior of people. And when coded into state law, it is by definition a coercive limit on freedom. One could argue that if it were done by explicit contract, it would be valid. But it's not done that way - it's done by legal fiat. I have no valid contract with anyone when I download a file. The person who originally bought the file I downloaded has no explicit contract with the author to not loan out the purchaser's property.
It might be useful to counter those yelling "theft" by yelling back "dictator" since their intent is to control your behavior for their benefit without compensation to you and in the absence of any rational contract. This is coercion plain and simple as much as stealing a CD from a store!