If I was the artist, I wouldn't be happy to settle for a percentage of the sale. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I'm entitled to the full sale price regardless of what Microsoft and others may believe. As the owner of a copyrighted work, I would be more than a little upset that someone else had decided for what price and in what way I was going to sell my work. 'cause, you know, that's not legal.
And the reasoning you have is that musicians so enjoy their work, that not only will they spend all day and night writing, recording, and touring, but they will also work full time jobs in order to barely squeak by financially, because hey, "artists never get paid properly anyway"? You've *got* to be shitting me. I dunno, that argument seemed to work pretty well for the open source phenomenon. No, it's not the same at all. The driving force behind OSS is not, as I understand it, because coders don't get paid well. Different people have different reasons for contributing their effort to the cause, but I've never heard "lack of decent pay" to be a reason. Also, the original poster suggests that artists work a regular job to support themselves. Unlike many OSS coders, they will not be able to work with music during that time. They'll be sharpening their skills at waiting tables and accounting.
So, let's get this straight. Musicians, who spend a great deal of time writing and recording music, will for some reason continue to do that, pay for studio time with their own money, and work a regular job to pay the bills, while they tour to support their music, and then give away their music for little or no money, to corporations that will make a profit by playing their music on the internet, which the musicians could just release their music on for free anyway?
And the reasoning you have is that musicians so enjoy their work, that not only will they spend all day and night writing, recording, and touring, but they will also work full time jobs in order to barely squeak by financially, because hey, "artists never get paid properly anyway"? You've *got* to be shitting me.
I'm not a musician, but I'm animator. Though the RIAA doesn't deal with my work, it's otherwise quite similar to being a musician. I worked hard to be able to do what I do, I continue to work hard at it, I get paid for what I produce and nothing extra, and my work is stolen on a regular basis via p2p, torrents, etc. I love what I do, but if you think for one second that the above scenario is in anyway a good idea for the artist, you are very seriously misinformed.
When artists don't get paid properly, they cannot spend the amount of time they need to to make great work. Not only that, it's insulting to suggest that some artists shouldn't be paid a great deal of money when their work is in great demand. Can you imagine mastering your chosen field, going to a job interview, and being told that you'll be paid with beer money because your work is so much fun? You'd probably be about as angry at that suggestion as I am.
"...a free society is one where an individual can make any decision they want, as long as they do not directly harm the physical property or body of another individual. Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is. The effect of the speech could be a physical reaction, but if that physical reaction is performed by a person other than the speech giver, the speech giver has not caused harm."
You've simplified the problem far too much, I'm afraid. Technically, it's true that speech can do no physical harm, but what you're saying is a bit like standing on a crowded sidewalk and swinging a baseball bat wildly until someone gets knocked on the head. TECHNICALLY, they could have walked around you. Realistically, though, you were endangering people by being a moron. Oh, but that's physical, right? How about telling a deaf person that it's safe to walk on the train tracks, even though you know there's a train coming right behind him? How about a boss knowingly putting a worker in danger? How about a politician lying? What if that lie causes a war?
The idea is to put *reasonable* restrictions on actions (including speech) that negatively affect the safety and livelihood of others. If you don't consider that freedom, well, that's your opinion. But when done correctly, it's about as good as it gets. In my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
And the reasoning you have is that musicians so enjoy their work, that not only will they spend all day and night writing, recording, and touring, but they will also work full time jobs in order to barely squeak by financially, because hey, "artists never get paid properly anyway"? You've *got* to be shitting me.
I'm not a musician, but I'm animator. Though the RIAA doesn't deal with my work, it's otherwise quite similar to being a musician. I worked hard to be able to do what I do, I continue to work hard at it, I get paid for what I produce and nothing extra, and my work is stolen on a regular basis via p2p, torrents, etc. I love what I do, but if you think for one second that the above scenario is in anyway a good idea for the artist, you are very seriously misinformed.
When artists don't get paid properly, they cannot spend the amount of time they need to to make great work. Not only that, it's insulting to suggest that some artists shouldn't be paid a great deal of money when their work is in great demand. Can you imagine mastering your chosen field, going to a job interview, and being told that you'll be paid with beer money because your work is so much fun? You'd probably be about as angry at that suggestion as I am.
"...a free society is one where an individual can make any decision they want, as long as they do not directly harm the physical property or body of another individual. Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is. The effect of the speech could be a physical reaction, but if that physical reaction is performed by a person other than the speech giver, the speech giver has not caused harm."
You've simplified the problem far too much, I'm afraid. Technically, it's true that speech can do no physical harm, but what you're saying is a bit like standing on a crowded sidewalk and swinging a baseball bat wildly until someone gets knocked on the head. TECHNICALLY, they could have walked around you. Realistically, though, you were endangering people by being a moron. Oh, but that's physical, right? How about telling a deaf person that it's safe to walk on the train tracks, even though you know there's a train coming right behind him? How about a boss knowingly putting a worker in danger? How about a politician lying? What if that lie causes a war?
The idea is to put *reasonable* restrictions on actions (including speech) that negatively affect the safety and livelihood of others. If you don't consider that freedom, well, that's your opinion. But when done correctly, it's about as good as it gets. In my opinion.