That's bullshit. Plenty of musicians make music because they like making music. I'm sure many would do it full time as long as they could make enough to get by.
Yes, plenty do, and many do. And most of them take a great risk in doing so. Yet by your logic they should never make more than "enough to get by," even if their work becomes immensely popular?
The only thing we would lose by putting "salary caps" on musicians would the no talent hacks who are only in it for the money, and that would not be a tragic loss.
Talent and a desire to make money are not mutually exclusive.
Availibility would hardly go down, but quality would go way up.
Simple logic says both availability and quality would go down; it is only a matter of how much. All of the artists willing to work at high risk for low pay would still be there, but those demanding at least the chance at fame and fortune (how dare they) would find other careers. There is no possible way the talent pool would do anything but shrink, and the body of quality music soon after.
if pop stars were paid like teachers an iTunes song would cost about the same as P2P
If pop stars were paid like teachers, no one in their right mind would undertake the massive risk of working in the entertainment industry. As a direct result, the quality of available music would plummet. Then the price of that music would drop accordingly when no one was willing to buy it. So I suppose you're right.
I am sick of hearing this nonsense. This fairy tale idea that capitalism will bring its fruit to everyone and all will be equal.
The promise that "all will be equal" is a tenet of communism, not capitalism.
capitalism creates inequality, not equality
Yes, capitalism operates on the theory that giving people material reward (inequality) when they produce more is the best way to maximize overall economic output.
Just look at the US and how the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
The rich are indeed getting richer, but the poor... are also getting richer. Moreover, the poor today are not the same people that were poor yesterday; the United States has unparalleled upward income mobility. Thanks to capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, plenty do, and many do. And most of them take a great risk in doing so. Yet by your logic they should never make more than "enough to get by," even if their work becomes immensely popular? Talent and a desire to make money are not mutually exclusive. Simple logic says both availability and quality would go down; it is only a matter of how much. All of the artists willing to work at high risk for low pay would still be there, but those demanding at least the chance at fame and fortune (how dare they) would find other careers. There is no possible way the talent pool would do anything but shrink, and the body of quality music soon after.
If pop stars were paid like teachers, no one in their right mind would undertake the massive risk of working in the entertainment industry. As a direct result, the quality of available music would plummet. Then the price of that music would drop accordingly when no one was willing to buy it. So I suppose you're right.
This is like saying lottery winners are overpaid because the ticket only costs a dollar.
The promise that "all will be equal" is a tenet of communism, not capitalism. Yes, capitalism operates on the theory that giving people material reward (inequality) when they produce more is the best way to maximize overall economic output. The rich are indeed getting richer, but the poor... are also getting richer. Moreover, the poor today are not the same people that were poor yesterday; the United States has unparalleled upward income mobility. Thanks to capitalism.