Once digital TV rolls around and they get the watermarks put in you'll see commercials running non-stop in the "black bars" at the top and bottom of the picture. You already see commercials for programs during program playback (usually in the lower right corner).
Of course, since the TV networks see a very sizable chunk of their revenue from their non-broadcast divisions it really doesn't matter much. They'll scream and kick their way to Congress and the FCC who will accomodate their lockdown on program "sharing", but boradcast TVs days are numbered anyway. I give it until 2009 which is a few years past the mandatory digital changeover before people no longer care just as they no longer care about boradcast radio.
You do realize that people like DVDs, they just don't like being told what they can/can't do with them after being purchased, right?
Re:It's a new world, folks, adjust your arguments
on
Surveillance Update
·
· Score: 2
"aw geez... you just took the cop out, i did not imply the cop out. i am impying ACTION. thank you for taking my words, and deftly suggesting INACTION. good gawd.;-P"
Nope. It's not a cop out. You can't reason with a herd (your words). Its best to step out of the way. Herd reflexes don't tend to last long anyway since they are driven by emotions, not logic or reason. So you got to keep the herd whipped to keep it going.
I'm all for stopping terrorism but you don't do that by bombing another country. You do that by getting those few who are responsible and resolving it either through the courts or through very selective covert means.
In 1982 when Soviet government personnell were taken hostage in Beirut they didn't blow up Beirut. They had the KGB find the group responsible, and mailed fingers from members of that group to their leaders. Within days the hostages were released.
"we are to do nothing about sept. 11?"
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting a slow approach that evaluates the pros and cons before acting.
From everything I've seen there were signs something was going to happen. It was the lack of being able to communicate effectively and collate *available information* that didn't prevent Sept 11, not a lack of powers.
Sure we can cancel the Constitution. Maybe we'll be safe. Maybe not. It is the *illusion* of safety that leads to limits on the government being shredded. In any event why didn't the 1996 anti-Terrorism act suffice? Is there any evidence spying on people attending church, hiding in chat rooms in hopes of getting information about something that might someday happen going to make me safer? I am extremely sceptical.
"the us govt is made up of well-meaning halfwits trapped in a bureaucratic amber. and you consign to them this amazing power of foresight and control."
Not at all. I absolutely agree. That is preceisly why I *don't* want more power given to the government. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. Nevertheless, there is good reason to mistrust those that purport to protect us.
Have you read the findings of the Church Commssion? Did you know that elements within the government trampled on "anti-American" groups like Dr Martin Luther King Jr? I'm sure most field agents didn't think they were doing anything wrong, but those calling the shots (Hoover, Nixon and others) think they were protecting us Americans. Yet they weren't bureacrats, but people with the power to enact adn implement a policy they thought was in somebody's best interests (American's their's whoever).
As for my "read between the lines" comment I am trying to encourage people to put events inside a broader context. Obviously people like you who feel the need to swear and believe you're reading the whole story when you pick up USA Today must be right. How many people know we fired anti-tank missles at a group of people who may or may not have been terrorists in Afghanistan? Not exactly front page news, yet this same tactic when used by the Israelis against Palestinians was all over the papers at the same time (circa Feb - March).
There doesn't have to be a grand manipulator orchestrating events to have somebody's interests override somebody elses. Individuals and organizations will always tend to act in their own self-interest. Those interests often conflict with the interests of others. For example, the CIA didn't see the end of Communicam coming. Once the Berlin Wall fell and the putsch in Moscow was foiled they scrambled to find a justification for their existence. Was it going to be drug lords, industrial espionage, North Koreans? They were all trotted out during the 90s.
And I certainly don't trust a born again Pentecostal who begins his meetings with prayers and is annointed in oil to know what's always in my best interests. The only thing Ashcroft has done I applaud is reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so its easier for me to own a gun.
Feel free to think I'm a conspiratorial nut. Human fallibility when mixed with awesome power is a dangerous combination. That's why our Founding Fathers struck limits to the power of the government and ensured checks and balances.
Re:It's a new world, folks, adjust your arguments
on
Surveillance Update
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
By your own argument it would be futile to reason with the herd. So why bother?
FWIW, even a casual observation by the most obtuse person in the US would realize they are more likely to be struck by a car than a terrorist's bomb. That's where we need to be arguing - risk and proportion. But until people quit watching TV news and learn to read between the lines in their newspapers we will always have a government that manipulates its population out of fear and ignorance.
The only thing that changes is the names and efficiency of propagating a meme.
"I think the discussion over Copyright should focus on the creation of art, not the middlemanning thereof."
Hey, I'm all for that. I don't see how what I said contradicts that. Simply stating that live performers aren't necessarily hurt by archived recordings of work.
I also don't believe "artists" are entitled to make a living from their work either. I believe if we got rid of the middleman and the commoditization of art or performing works everybody would be better off as quality would resruface. I just don't think RCA should be seen as a threat by recording acts. After all, said recordings are a revenue stream for the artist (at least theoritcally) as much as a live performance.
Its a lot easier for me to buy a Faye Wong CD than it is for me to go to HK or Taiwan to see her perform. And if it wasn't for prerecorded media I would never have even heard of her in the first place.
I just don't think that live performers will be hurt is all. After all, radio, cinema, and TV were said to do the same thing and it has not happened. There will always be a certain amount of people who will attend live performances be they rock concerts, stage theatre or orchestral performances.
If the MPAA can't stop people from buying/selling from different regions expect them to drop subtitle and multiple language support outside the US market very soon.
By ensuring only one language per DVD you'll see fewer people from the US buying Japanese and HK DVDs. You'll also see people in France no longer hopping to the UK or ordering from US online stores. Ironic since many French versions of HK and Japanese DVDs are better quality (more features/languages and better print quality) than those in the US or HK.
The MPAA members will be able to return to controlling releases among different countries and can then ensure better adherence to their price structures.
The reason this won't happen in the US is the variety of languages spoken in the US and the fact that the US market is currently the one with the most DVD titles available.
Hal Roach Studios? Awesome. Maybe then we can get Weezer to promote some cool techno. Alfalfa to do some crooning in support of anti-RIAA activities and Buckwheat to... just be Buckwheat.
So what? Are kids going to be using refrigerators in class to learn? You make it sound like the goal of Linux is to simply be in as many places as possible. What good is that in and of itself?
I'd rather own a product that does a few things well than one that does a lot of things in mediocrity. That's why I use a Mac in the first place.
You know what's interestig is all th emilitary procurements in Windows systems the past few years. If exposing Windows to scrutiny is a threat to National Security (and I don't believe it for a second) then that would mean the military is in a perilous situation that would be potentially embarassing for them and the government. Better to keep it quiet by hiding it all under a "threat to national security". BUt then secrets aren't exactly unknown to our current administration.
But look at Apple's target markets: Education, Creative, Biotech, Video. Are these markets people that want to rely on IT and support? I don't think Apple is competing against Sun or SGI. Seems pretty clear they are offering a UNIX alternative for people who don't want to have to know UNIX to me.
Certainly no big challenge to large database companies nor Windows Enterprises.
Yes, most Americans are stupid. Well intentioned, but stupid, like most of humanity. Nevertheless, it is the political system itself that is to blame, not the people. The system doesn't offer true choice and anytime people try to go alone or make a change to the system, it is smacked down.
Watch "Meet John Doe". I also felt like jumping off a bridge by the end.
No. You can *trademark* a typeface name. As a few examples of registered typeface trademarks, there are Times Roman (U.S. registration 417,439, October 30, 1945 to Eltra Corporation, now part of Allied); Helvetica (U.S. registration 825,989, March 21, 1967, also to Eltra-Allied), and Lucida (U.S. reg. 1,314,574 to Bigelow & Holmes). Most countries offer trademark registration and protection, and it is common for a typeface name to be registered in many countries.
Digital (as opposed to analog) fonts may be protected by copyright of digital data and of computer programs. It has been established that computer software is copyrightable. Therefore, software that embodies a typeface, e.g. a digital font, is presumably also protected. There is some objection to this kind of copyright, on the grounds that the ultimate output of the program or the result of the data (i.e. a typeface design) is not copyrightable. However, the current belief expressed by the National Commission on New Technological Use of Copyrighted Works is that software is copyrightable even if its function is to produce ultimately a non-copyrightable work. Hence, typefaces produced by Metafont or PostScript(R), two computer languages which represent fonts as programs, are presumably copyrightable. Typefaces represented as bit-map data, run-length codes, spline outlines, and other digital data formats, may also be copyrightable. Some firms do copyright digital fonts as digital data. The copyright office is currently reviewing this practice to determine if it is acceptable.
The designs of typefaces may be patented in the U.S. under existing design patent law. Many designs are patented, but type designers generally don't like the patent process because it is slow, expensive, and uncertain.
The reason you see so many fonts that appear to be identical is there is no copyright on the design itself. However, you cannot copy the program or digital data which is what you would be doing if you just kept the typeface you get from a designer.
"The big savings comes from substituting the InsightServer for Microsoft's Exchange server, and adding InsightConnector on the employees' Outlook(TM) client on their Windows desktops. From then on, Outlook clients behave as if they are talking with an Exchange server. Employees enjoy the integrated functionality of e-mail, contact information, and scheduling, while the employer gains Linux reliability, ease of central administration."
Please review this article in which a company used OSS to creat software that allows PC users using Outlook client to connect to Exchange servers.
InsightServer is built atop these unmodified pieces of Open Source software: Cyrus IMAP Server, from Carnegie-Mellon University http://asg.Web.cmu.edu/cyrus/ Exim MTA (Message Transfer Agent), from Cambridge University http://www.exim.org/ Berkeley Database, from the University of California http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/ GDBM GNU Database Libraries from Free Software Foundation http://www.gnu.org/software/gdbm/gdbm. html ProFTP from the ProFTPD Project http://proftpd.linux.co.uk/ Apache HTTP Server from the Apache Foundation http://httpd.apache.org/
Bynari has not modified these, and does provide the source code with the Open Source components.
You obviously don't work in the design field do you?
Fonts aren't "freely distributed" in most cases. Fonts usually do accompany a piece sent to the printer to ensure the printer can reproduce the typeface in the design. But the printer must remove the fonts from their system if they do not have rights to them. Fonts you see in print are nearly always copyrighted due to the demanding nature of making a good, legible and proper typeface.
See if you can track down a West Virginia Public Television tape called "The Dancing Outlaw". It is the craziest thing I have ever seen and it is all true. The scene I described above happened in that video, but it was the most sensible thing in the movie.
Combine a folk dancing Elvis impersonator from the hills who has huffed too much gasoline (out of an RC can) with a stream of consciousness storytelling style and you get Jessico, the man who thinks Jesus saved him so that he could tell his visitors about his sunglasses.
The pros won't use open formats - they want to get paid and are essentially work for hire anyway. So they'll use whatever they are told to or whatever the majority of the hardware players will play back (most likely WMP in 2-3 years).
Joe Six Pack may use open formats, but do you want to see his home movie with his family drinking and doing donuts in his mud filled yard next to his trailer?
I think the idea is to allow OEMs to make deals with software dealers in order to provide a competitive offering. The theory is let Gateway install Real Player, Netscape Navigator and AOL and MS Office. Dell could then offer the same computer with the MS equivalents.
The idea is to allow OEMs some freedom as well. Of course few people would buy a completely free OS. But OEMs and software sellers could ensure more choice in prepackaged software which might bring in additional revenue for them.
I agree though that it is unlikely such a thing would matter in practice.
The problem with relying on market forces only is that any market that is dominated by an entity like MS has done (and found guilty of violating the laws) is not a free or open market. That is what the remedies are trying to reach.
Like I said, I don't download music. But with nobody creating new stuff there will be a rise in demand for preexisting content. I'm willing to pay for content now. I just need to know about it and be able to get it. Right now the media interests have no interest in providing anything other than mass content.
I wish artists would quit thinking they are owed a career. Art's been a commodity in this country for a long time. Get used to it. If you're good, you'll make money, if you suck you won't.
I've been poor before. I haven't had a decent job in a year. But I'm not deluding myself that I am owed a living or a job by anybody. I must get it by my merits, not because I am "owed" anything.
If people keep stealing their music, artists won't have any means or motivation to make more music.
Not that I download music, but no, it wouldn't bother me. I would still have access to 100 years of recordings, more than I could ever listen to in my life.
If nobody wants to create, fine. I don't believe that will happen, but then maybe I can have access to a lot more than I do now, even if none of it is "new".
Slashdot Mirror
Once digital TV rolls around and they get the watermarks put in you'll see commercials running non-stop in the "black bars" at the top and bottom of the picture. You already see commercials for programs during program playback (usually in the lower right corner).
Of course, since the TV networks see a very sizable chunk of their revenue from their non-broadcast divisions it really doesn't matter much. They'll scream and kick their way to Congress and the FCC who will accomodate their lockdown on program "sharing", but boradcast TVs days are numbered anyway. I give it until 2009 which is a few years past the mandatory digital changeover before people no longer care just as they no longer care about boradcast radio.
than the price the government orignally paid?
:)
That's where the investigation should focus.
You do realize that people like DVDs, they just don't like being told what they can/can't do with them after being purchased, right?
"aw geez... you just took the cop out, i did not imply the cop out. i am impying ACTION. thank you for taking my words, and deftly suggesting INACTION. good gawd. ;-P"
Nope. It's not a cop out. You can't reason with a herd (your words). Its best to step out of the way. Herd reflexes don't tend to last long anyway since they are driven by emotions, not logic or reason. So you got to keep the herd whipped to keep it going.
I'm all for stopping terrorism but you don't do that by bombing another country. You do that by getting those few who are responsible and resolving it either through the courts or through very selective covert means.
In 1982 when Soviet government personnell were taken hostage in Beirut they didn't blow up Beirut. They had the KGB find the group responsible, and mailed fingers from members of that group to their leaders. Within days the hostages were released.
"we are to do nothing about sept. 11?"
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting a slow approach that evaluates the pros and cons before acting.
From everything I've seen there were signs something was going to happen. It was the lack of being able to communicate effectively and collate *available information* that didn't prevent Sept 11, not a lack of powers.
Sure we can cancel the Constitution. Maybe we'll be safe. Maybe not. It is the *illusion* of safety that leads to limits on the government being shredded. In any event why didn't the 1996 anti-Terrorism act suffice? Is there any evidence spying on people attending church, hiding in chat rooms in hopes of getting information about something that might someday happen going to make me safer? I am extremely sceptical.
"the us govt is made up of well-meaning halfwits trapped in a bureaucratic amber. and you consign to them this amazing power of foresight and control."
Not at all. I absolutely agree. That is preceisly why I *don't* want more power given to the government. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. Nevertheless, there is good reason to mistrust those that purport to protect us.
Have you read the findings of the Church Commssion? Did you know that elements within the government trampled on "anti-American" groups like Dr Martin Luther King Jr? I'm sure most field agents didn't think they were doing anything wrong, but those calling the shots (Hoover, Nixon and others) think they were protecting us Americans. Yet they weren't bureacrats, but people with the power to enact adn implement a policy they thought was in somebody's best interests (American's their's whoever).
As for my "read between the lines" comment I am trying to encourage people to put events inside a broader context. Obviously people like you who feel the need to swear and believe you're reading the whole story when you pick up USA Today must be right. How many people know we fired anti-tank missles at a group of people who may or may not have been terrorists in Afghanistan? Not exactly front page news, yet this same tactic when used by the Israelis against Palestinians was all over the papers at the same time (circa Feb - March).
There doesn't have to be a grand manipulator orchestrating events to have somebody's interests override somebody elses. Individuals and organizations will always tend to act in their own self-interest. Those interests often conflict with the interests of others. For example, the CIA didn't see the end of Communicam coming. Once the Berlin Wall fell and the putsch in Moscow was foiled they scrambled to find a justification for their existence. Was it going to be drug lords, industrial espionage, North Koreans? They were all trotted out during the 90s.
And I certainly don't trust a born again Pentecostal who begins his meetings with prayers and is annointed in oil to know what's always in my best interests. The only thing Ashcroft has done I applaud is reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so its easier for me to own a gun.
Feel free to think I'm a conspiratorial nut. Human fallibility when mixed with awesome power is a dangerous combination. That's why our Founding Fathers struck limits to the power of the government and ensured checks and balances.
By your own argument it would be futile to reason with the herd. So why bother?
FWIW, even a casual observation by the most obtuse person in the US would realize they are more likely to be struck by a car than a terrorist's bomb. That's where we need to be arguing - risk and proportion. But until people quit watching TV news and learn to read between the lines in their newspapers we will always have a government that manipulates its population out of fear and ignorance.
The only thing that changes is the names and efficiency of propagating a meme.
Yep. While I adore their social policies their economic policies scare the bejebus out of me.
Regardless, I'll probably stop my idealistic "the lesser-of-two-evils-is-evil" stance and vote for them next time.
I guess that is likely to get me on the FBI list again (Already am for political demos back in the 80s).
I do wish that people would realize that power leads to abuses whether it is the FBI, the executive branch fo the US government, or a market leader.
Oh. And quit blaming the victim.
"I think the discussion over Copyright should focus on the creation of art, not the middlemanning thereof."
Hey, I'm all for that. I don't see how what I said contradicts that. Simply stating that live performers aren't necessarily hurt by archived recordings of work.
I also don't believe "artists" are entitled to make a living from their work either. I believe if we got rid of the middleman and the commoditization of art or performing works everybody would be better off as quality would resruface. I just don't think RCA should be seen as a threat by recording acts. After all, said recordings are a revenue stream for the artist (at least theoritcally) as much as a live performance.
Its a lot easier for me to buy a Faye Wong CD than it is for me to go to HK or Taiwan to see her perform. And if it wasn't for prerecorded media I would never have even heard of her in the first place.
I just don't think that live performers will be hurt is all. After all, radio, cinema, and TV were said to do the same thing and it has not happened. There will always be a certain amount of people who will attend live performances be they rock concerts, stage theatre or orchestral performances.
If the MPAA can't stop people from buying/selling from different regions expect them to drop subtitle and multiple language support outside the US market very soon.
By ensuring only one language per DVD you'll see fewer people from the US buying Japanese and HK DVDs. You'll also see people in France no longer hopping to the UK or ordering from US online stores. Ironic since many French versions of HK and Japanese DVDs are better quality (more features/languages and better print quality) than those in the US or HK.
The MPAA members will be able to return to controlling releases among different countries and can then ensure better adherence to their price structures.
The reason this won't happen in the US is the variety of languages spoken in the US and the fact that the US market is currently the one with the most DVD titles available.
This should not have been modd'ed "Funny". It is insightful, even if I personally disagree.
Where's my mod points when I need them?
Hal Roach Studios? Awesome. Maybe then we can get Weezer to promote some cool techno. Alfalfa to do some crooning in support of anti-RIAA activities and Buckwheat to ... just be Buckwheat.
So what? Are kids going to be using refrigerators in class to learn? You make it sound like the goal of Linux is to simply be in as many places as possible. What good is that in and of itself?
I'd rather own a product that does a few things well than one that does a lot of things in mediocrity. That's why I use a Mac in the first place.
Yep. If it worked for Apple, imagine what it can do for Linux!
You know what's interestig is all th emilitary procurements in Windows systems the past few years. If exposing Windows to scrutiny is a threat to National Security (and I don't believe it for a second) then that would mean the military is in a perilous situation that would be potentially embarassing for them and the government. Better to keep it quiet by hiding it all under a "threat to national security". BUt then secrets aren't exactly unknown to our current administration.
But look at Apple's target markets:
Education, Creative, Biotech, Video. Are these markets people that want to rely on IT and support? I don't think Apple is competing against Sun or SGI. Seems pretty clear they are offering a UNIX alternative for people who don't want to have to know UNIX to me.
Certainly no big challenge to large database companies nor Windows Enterprises.
Yes, most Americans are stupid. Well intentioned, but stupid, like most of humanity. Nevertheless, it is the political system itself that is to blame, not the people. The system doesn't offer true choice and anytime people try to go alone or make a change to the system, it is smacked down.
Watch "Meet John Doe". I also felt like jumping off a bridge by the end.
No. You can *trademark* a typeface name. As a few examples of registered typeface trademarks, there are Times Roman (U.S. registration 417,439, October 30, 1945 to Eltra Corporation, now part of Allied); Helvetica (U.S. registration 825,989, March 21, 1967, also to Eltra-Allied), and Lucida (U.S. reg. 1,314,574 to Bigelow & Holmes). Most countries offer trademark registration and protection, and it is common for a typeface name to be registered in many countries.
Digital (as opposed to analog) fonts may be protected by copyright of digital data and of computer programs. It has been established that computer software is copyrightable. Therefore, software that embodies a typeface, e.g. a digital font, is presumably also protected. There is some objection to this kind of copyright, on the grounds that the ultimate output of the program or the result of the data (i.e. a typeface design) is not copyrightable. However, the current belief expressed by the National Commission on New Technological Use of Copyrighted Works is that software is copyrightable even if its function is to produce ultimately a non-copyrightable work. Hence, typefaces produced by Metafont or PostScript(R), two computer languages which represent fonts as programs, are presumably copyrightable. Typefaces represented as bit-map data, run-length codes, spline outlines, and other digital data formats, may also be copyrightable. Some firms do copyright digital fonts as digital data. The copyright office is currently reviewing this practice to determine if it is acceptable.
The designs of typefaces may be patented in the U.S. under existing design patent law. Many designs are patented, but type designers generally don't like the patent process because it is slow, expensive, and uncertain.
The reason you see so many fonts that appear to be identical is there is no copyright on the design itself. However, you cannot copy the program or digital data which is what you would be doing if you just kept the typeface you get from a designer.
I mean non-Exchange servers!
"The big savings comes from substituting the InsightServer for Microsoft's Exchange server, and adding InsightConnector on the employees' Outlook(TM) client on their Windows desktops. From then on, Outlook clients behave as if they are talking with an Exchange server. Employees enjoy the integrated functionality of e-mail, contact information, and scheduling, while the employer gains Linux reliability, ease of central administration."
Please review this article in which a company used OSS to creat software that allows PC users using Outlook client to connect to Exchange servers.
. html
InsightServer is built atop these unmodified pieces of Open Source software:
Cyrus IMAP Server, from Carnegie-Mellon University
http://asg.Web.cmu.edu/cyrus/
Exim MTA (Message Transfer Agent), from Cambridge University
http://www.exim.org/
Berkeley Database, from the University of California
http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/
GDBM GNU Database Libraries from Free Software Foundation
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdbm/gdbm
ProFTP from the ProFTPD Project
http://proftpd.linux.co.uk/
Apache HTTP Server from the Apache Foundation
http://httpd.apache.org/
Bynari has not modified these, and does provide the source code with the Open Source components.
You obviously don't work in the design field do you?
Fonts aren't "freely distributed" in most cases. Fonts usually do accompany a piece sent to the printer to ensure the printer can reproduce the typeface in the design. But the printer must remove the fonts from their system if they do not have rights to them. Fonts you see in print are nearly always copyrighted due to the demanding nature of making a good, legible and proper typeface.
Check out this book.
See if you can track down a West Virginia Public Television tape called "The Dancing Outlaw". It is the craziest thing I have ever seen and it is all true. The scene I described above happened in that video, but it was the most sensible thing in the movie.
Combine a folk dancing Elvis impersonator from the hills who has huffed too much gasoline (out of an RC can) with a stream of consciousness storytelling style and you get Jessico, the man who thinks Jesus saved him so that he could tell his visitors about his sunglasses.
Um yeah.
The pros won't use open formats - they want to get paid and are essentially work for hire anyway. So they'll use whatever they are told to or whatever the majority of the hardware players will play back (most likely WMP in 2-3 years).
Joe Six Pack may use open formats, but do you want to see his home movie with his family drinking and doing donuts in his mud filled yard next to his trailer?
Neither do I.
I think the idea is to allow OEMs to make deals with software dealers in order to provide a competitive offering. The theory is let Gateway install Real Player, Netscape Navigator and AOL and MS Office. Dell could then offer the same computer with the MS equivalents.
The idea is to allow OEMs some freedom as well. Of course few people would buy a completely free OS. But OEMs and software sellers could ensure more choice in prepackaged software which might bring in additional revenue for them.
I agree though that it is unlikely such a thing would matter in practice.
The problem with relying on market forces only is that any market that is dominated by an entity like MS has done (and found guilty of violating the laws) is not a free or open market. That is what the remedies are trying to reach.
Like I said, I don't download music. But with nobody creating new stuff there will be a rise in demand for preexisting content. I'm willing to pay for content now. I just need to know about it and be able to get it. Right now the media interests have no interest in providing anything other than mass content.
I wish artists would quit thinking they are owed a career. Art's been a commodity in this country for a long time. Get used to it. If you're good, you'll make money, if you suck you won't.
I've been poor before. I haven't had a decent job in a year. But I'm not deluding myself that I am owed a living or a job by anybody. I must get it by my merits, not because I am "owed" anything.
If people keep stealing their music, artists won't have any means or motivation to make more music.
Not that I download music, but no, it wouldn't bother me. I would still have access to 100 years of recordings, more than I could ever listen to in my life.
If nobody wants to create, fine. I don't believe that will happen, but then maybe I can have access to a lot more than I do now, even if none of it is "new".