Gee, I had no idea South Park was considered snuff.
No, South Park is considered comedy. It's also considered offensive by certain people, including but not limited to people offended by (graphic) violence.
In short, I don't think the GP deserved the flamebait mod.
Huh. Say what you like, but acupuncture works. I doubt you've ever tried it, and I guess you feel you don't have to generally say alternative medicine is a huge scam, but it does work wonders for some things. It doesn't use medical/scientific jargon to explain itself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
"Full" means however much people as a whole are willing to pay, i.e. the amount anyone else selling anything else would get selling anything else of equivalent worth. Like I said, he contradicted himself.
... just like some people pay $100 a week for the right to imagine they own a house. Yeah, that's it. They just want to imagine they own it, and being able to have comfort and shelter are just side-effects.
I swear intellectual property is subjected to the biggest double standards here at Slashdot since Microsoft.
Can someone explain to me how this obvious conflict of interest has persisted for so long?
Probably because commissions help make better salesmen, which help make the company richer, which drives down their overhead (but that's pretty negligible). That, and no-one really complains about it.
I hate shills. I hate them. You know what? I want the IP economy to collapse.
Yeah, I don't care much for shills either. Oh wait, you probably weren't referring to people paid to express opinions by companies, just people who disagree with you.
I guess the question is not so much whether "these people" deserve it, as whether you deserve it. Well, perhaps not you you, but at least other people.
following the pure capitalistic style also destroys arts!
From your analogy, I'm guessing you're comparing music expenditure with leases, as in there is only so much money in music, and as artists start making more money (taking more land), more crap artists take up the rest of the leases, trying to take a share of the money. However, unlike leases, money spent on music is spent selectively. People don't just buy music from the highest bidder, or the first to come knocking on their door, they spend it on what they want. It's more analogous to people owning private plots, and filling them with whoever they like. Hence, I put it to you that money doesn't destroy arts, it just adds to it in arguably non-constructive ways (but it's completely subjective, as is everything in arts).
Because he cannot nullify copyright, he had to create a license in which effectively substituted it.
I still don't get why it has to be so aggressive, and why he chose to rely on copyright, when a better statement of independence would be to not rely upon it. He just ends up making a good case for copyright, and how even free distribution is enriched by it. The GPL is bigger than Stallman, just like copyright is bigger than the RIAA.
Can that not be said of any software?
That's the question isn't it? FOSS produces some good software, often better than many of their proprietary rivals, but more often than not, it actually ends up being proprietary software, based on traditional business models that ends up producing the best software in most fields. So perhaps we could sacrifice the best in exchange for pretty good, but I really don't see the point.
The only choice is to not buy it, but that choice divorces us from our culture.
Well, if people feel the same way, then culture would become unprofitable, and would eventually come to you. Perhaps also try spreading the word of copyright reform, but talking about scrapping it just because of some petty term disputes would alienate more than a few people. Perhaps, as a compromise, you could boycott the culture after however long you believe copyrights should last? That will keep you relatively up to date with our culture, and the losses that big-art will suffer will be proportional to the damage they caused.
I'm confused. Why would we make only the music I like viable? I simply pointed out two examples of bands, I never said these were the only examples.
You keep saying that copyright brings richer culture. I keep disagreeing with that, I think the evidence points to the contrary.
There is basically no evidence to the contrary. The counter-copyright culture has been nutured in an environment of rich culture, which we enjoy today. We have thousands upon thousands of options for artistic entertainment, and music has penetrated our lives so deeply that the world would seem odd without it. With this rich culture, interwoven so subtly yet completely into our lives, I guess it would only seem natural that the artistic inspiration it brings comes from some underutilised natural part of the human mind, but it doesn't. It comes from being thouroughly aquainted with music. Without all this music, there is nothing (or much, much less) to work towards, to bounce ideas off of, to encourage and inspire.
It seems fairly obvious to me that more money into the field produces more works. I have gone over the prinicple in great detail, breaking it into logical components, shown with an almost mathematical certainty that the concept holds, plus I've given you an easy test to show it in practice (Remember? Look at the free culture vs the restricted one?). With less works, that produces less inspiration, which produces less desire to create works, which produces less works, and so the cycle continues. It may not kill music off completely, but it'll do a fine job at trying.
That's it. That's my argument, explained yet again, in yet another form. I fell as though I've been repeating my self ad nauseum, so this is probably where I'll end it, unless I find something else of interest further down.
As for my comment that you were replying to, one of my original points was that by using the bands you like (not just the two, obviously) as the model, you guarantee only their survival. As a matter of fact, you can see by looking at indie collections that they happen to be predisposed to some kinds of music more than others. For example, I have yet to see a full orchestral piece of music in an indie collection (perhaps you could prove me wrong?), but I do see a lot of standard rock bands and a lot of electronic/techno stuff, and a lot of it is IMHO pretty low grade. Anyway, the reality is that if copyrighted business hit rock bottom, that's what we'll be left with, so you had better like it, or you're stuffed. Now, however, I've changed my mind. Not even that will survive the vacume of inspiration.
Okay, this is interesting.
Well, what do you know! Something of interest!;)
Your reasoning goes as follows
My reasoning is in the quotes, not in that list. That list is an effigy of hyperbolic extensions to generic pro-copyright arguments. It implies that the purpose of my opinions is to make the labels money, which is patently false.
Labels don't pay them because they don't have to pay them. They don't have to pay them because most bands want to produce records even if it means taking a loss.
Like I said, labels don't end up giving some artists money (or much money) because that money is used to pay for recording services. As for the artists taking a loss, it just happens to be a good business decision to take a small loss (and it can only be smaller than the loss that would have been suffered under no copyright) and produce a better selling one later. They can afford to do that, because copyright has brought them money and a safety net (the label).
I disagree strongly. Here is what I think will happen (okay, I'm lying: this is already happening):
A majority of bands use the Internet to promote themselves. Instead of entering a deal with a record company and going into debt, they self-produce their album. They release it (or parts of it)
They stop at that point because they relize that the free software is better than the commercial software
I'll just stop you there. Free software is generally very good, but the top spot of most (all?) software fields is usually occupied by a piece of (often expensive) proprietary software. For instance, open office just isn't quite as good as Microsoft Office, the GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop, Rosegarden isn't as good as finale, etc. Still, for zero dollars down, they have my support (even if they sometimes don't have the support of professionals in the field).
Did you read the rest of his comments? He actually believes that artists don't need to work for money. He believes that the awesome power of music will be sufficient to put food on the table, plus finance their instruments, recording devices, and distribution methods. Hell, they probably won't even be able to afford internet access without a decent job. This guy is living in a fantasy world, one carefully constructed to justify and validate his opinions. It seems, like I said, that he has defined his taste in music to be in line with his political view of copyright, and also he has defined everyone else's taste in music to be in line with that. Hence he feels no remorse in peddling these crazy fantasies as fact. It's just a sad indicator of the times really.
The exception IS the GPL, which uses copyright to exit copyright.
How does it exit copyright? It relies on copyright for its purpose: source code distribution and forced back-contribution. It's the only thing that separates it from BSD-style licenses and direct public domain contributions. If we wanted to exit copyright, why wasn't the license for GPLed software changed to something more permissive? What (if anything) will take care of the GPL's purpose if copyright is cancelled? It happened to be one of the great things about open source, a reason why it survived. You may find that post-copyright, suddenly open source projects will have a lot more trouble evolving and developing, especially once corporate contributors (which drove so much development) start abandoning the product, just stop to contributing back, or even go out of business.
In the end, the GPL shows that there are other systems that can be used instead of current USA copyright law.
It shows some software developers are willing to contribute their work for free. It says nothing about the quality of the software, and it says nothing about anything else besides software. It also gives no hints as to the repercussions of removing the choice that software developers have when releasing their software. What it does indicate is how copyrighted software and non-copyrighted or copyleft software can exists side by side, and provides yet another good reason why scrapping copyrights is not necessary.
Copyright provides absolutely zero incentive for artists to create works - people with artistic talent will create works of art no matter whether they can have a financial monopoly on said works.
That statement only makes the slightest bit of sense if you redefine "artistic talent" to mean someone who will make this statement true. e.g. that guy down at the pub who does atrocious karaoke has artistic talent, whereas no-one from a poor, working class background, who have trouble affording free time to create music, has any artistic talent, because they need money.
In fact, as a rule of thumb, works made for profit are far worse than works made for art's sake.
Says who? Last time I checked, music was a matter of taste. Besides, so much music, good, bad, classics, moderns, have been created for profit. Reality, once again, completely disagrees with you. Once again, we have to define "worse" to fit the sentence, or else it doesn't make any sense.
Copyright has been used for nothing more than to stifle free expression, to blackmail consumers, and to purge knowledge and art from availability.
The GPL uses copyright to ensure the availability of source code for whoever asks for it. Oh my, you really aren't doing very well, are you?
Anything that reduces the available knowledge to mankind needs to be done away with.
Like, for example, your factually incorrect rants?
When people say "but I'P' is valuable!" I say - of course it is, each EU or US patent granted steals value from literally hundreds of millions of people's physical property rights.
Before the invention was thought of/granted, it existed only as a potential idea, among uncountably many other potential ideas. You may argue that everyone owns that chaotic realm of potential ideas, but we actually don't have much use for them until someone actually has the inspiration and works to make it a reality. You can think of them like cleaners: processing and rearranging your stuff to make it more usable for your benefit, all for a fee.
Of course, that's all theoretical, and says nothing about the often woeful implementations of patents, however, I maintain that there is nothing conceptually wrong with patents.
... with caveats. Your argument makes a nice soundbite, but falls flat when you look at actual implementation. Only some kinds of information can be owned under current laws, which are geared towards keeping personal exchanges free. Even if owned information can make its way into personal exchanges, and there isn't some exception/grey area (e.g. fair use), then the damage caused by such exchanges are very limited, and hence they are not worth enforcing. Danger of totalitarian society is still minimal.
As an anarcho-communist, I have to say, I don't acknowledge property rights. Why? Because property rights boil down to "I was here first, I stuck a flag in it, it is mine", and everything had a flag stuck in it before I was born, and I refuse to acknowledge a system that considers all of this to be someone elses property.
Anarcho-communist rights boil down to "I was born here, so it is mine". Why is yours so much more valid than mine? At least with my system, we have made a system that works, one that has produced computers and the internet, which, unless I'm not very much mistaken, you enjoy today, right?
I also think it's interesting that IP (generally) has absolutely nothing to do with birthplaces, birthrights, etc, and has not been completely staked (not even close). I.e. it possesses none of the characteristics that turned you away from property, yet you still oppose it. Why?
I believe the policy is more of a "give it here, or get the f*** out" policy. You are perfectly entitled to your possessions, but if you wish to remain in the park, you will be required to store them, but it's your choice either way. I don't think it's that unreasonable.
This seems like a straw man; I don't think I even implied that you should have to like the same music I like.
Ah, but if we make only the music you like at all viable, then I won't have a choice, will I? That's why I support copyright. It brings richer culture and more choice.
I merely pointed out that good music is made by people who don't do it for a living. This applies to pretty much all genres of music; you don't have to like the particular bands I like.
I'm extremely hesitant to provide any sort of validation to that claim. For one, it implies an objectivity in music tastes that simply isn't there. You say I don't have to like the same music as you, but that's just so long as I agree that the best music is created casually. For two, I find it a gross generalisation. I know some good musicians who's primary means of income are music, and a lot less who are casual musicians. For three, it makes little sense. Why would having less time/money to spend creating music and honing musical talent be a good thing? The fact that they are casual musicians indicates more to me that they are more likely to be enthusiastic, rather than talented.
I suspect that people could copy 100% of all music and never actually pay for a single song, and we would still have as many professional bands as we have now.
I'm still having trouble grasping why. You have said that music will survive, but you've made no mention of numbers. You haven't pointed out why the same people creating music now will continue to create when the bills stop being paid, or when they have to work another job. Logically, you would think that some of them, especially the ones doing it tough now, would drop out of the race. What would stop them, or what would fill the gap?
No, actually, this is the current state already.
Which is why we need a change. You know why some artists are failing to make money of recordings? It's because the fees for the services the RIAA provides comes out of the profits the recording sales. All too often, the lacklustre sales fail to leave the artist any profit. Thanks to piracy (and other factors) the barrier of entry has been raised. One thing I can assure you is that it won't get any better if we scrap copyright. Sales will be even more lacklustre, money to record will be even more scarce, and recording will die a quiet death.
This is obviously not true, since we seem to have records right now, even though they don't make their bands any money. Records are publicity.
They make some money, but sometimes that isn't enough to fully recoup costs. More popular ones will though. If sales drop further, then they won't even be worth the publicity. Besides publicity costs as well. It costs to advertise and to promote. Word of mouth takes a while to develop and usually requires promotion beforehand, so that the band becomes a household name. One that people are comfortable recommending to their friends.
I disagree. Humans have an innate need for notoriety.
Some people don't. Some people aren't confident of their abilities. Some people would rather not be judged. Some people, while they think it would be nice to be famous, realise that without laying some serious cash down, they can't be anything more than a lost filename on a P2P network. Actually, I was trying out jamendo.com, and I tried downloading one album. It gave me a torrent, and of course, there were absolutely no peers. If you don't already have notoriety, you need advertising.
I am not rewarding anything. I'm not even claiming that performing is the only way for artists to make money. Many bands seem to do quite well selling merchandise like shirts or posters, and things like special editions of their CDs.
I see two scenarios. One is the idealised scenario, where bands don't (and can't) restrict sharing of their music, but they have
There's no need to include a copyright statement; you own the copyright to your work automatically
I am aware, but I believe I would have the upper hand in court if I explicitly stated the copyright, and that copying 50-100% of my work is not acceptable. In real life, it would be thrown out quicker than a dog turd with wires poking out, ticking suspiciously. Still it was all in good fun while it lasted.
in some countries, you can't actually give it up (which is why you can't create public domain works in Germany, for exmple).
It's not copyright if the artist doesn't get a say in how it's distributed. At least, not a copyright I'd support.
I haven't looked down this end of my user page for a while. Are you still there?
Why not? Most of the music I actually listen to is from "part-time" bands.
That's you. Music tastes aren't some homogeneous collective concept that can be moulded to fit the music scene. The most efficient solution is to allow tastes to mould the music scene to fit. I don't want to be told that I should be liking the same music as you. Perhaps as a libertarian, you can appreciate that.
Yeah, I've bought their CDs, but you know what? They would continue making music even if nobody bought their CDs, as long as somebody came to their concerts because they make absolutely no money on CDs. I don't think they make any money from their music at all, actually. And perhaps that is better, because it allows them to make the music they want to, instead of the music which makes the most money.
No, money is and always has been an option. You don't have to take it. It's completely up to the artist whether or not they want money for their efforts. What you're doing is telling them what their choice is. Some may be fine under servitude under their fans (Who am I kidding? Servants get more money than donations! Optional slavery would be better fitting) but many others will justifiably want out.
If artists are making no money of recordings (which is the natural consequence of piracy), then they will stop producing them. Some people have desires to create music, some people have desires to perform music, a few have desire to create and perform music when money is tight, and even fewer have those desires, plus are somewhat good at what they do, but I don't believe that there is some innate desire in human beings to distribute recordings, not if they're performing. You are rewarding performance and performance only. Why would they bother investing in good recordings if it's a thankless job?
Also, it's not just the current generation of music which will suffer (if we reduce our choices to not-for-profit part-time bands), it will be the next generations as well. When our selection of music is cut down, we will have less to draw from. People will listen to less music (having less access to it), and will fail to be inspired. Currently, we have a diverse musical culture, thanks in no small part to copyright, which has inspired many a musician to think "I like that, I might play with that", or "I could do that, but much better", or any other similar statement. Consequently our musical culture continues to diversify and evolve. By cutting down our choices, you are cutting down our inspiration. You may find that in 10 years, the few artists out there who still feel the need to create music will sound extremely similar to the indie music of today, and they will have little internal diversity.
Besides, it's not just a lovely dream; it's how music and media has worked for most of human history. People made music before copyright was invented, and they will make music long after its demise.
You keep saying that, and I acknowledge that it's true: even if you destroy every bit of progress we've made, take away every incentive, music, like a bloody cockroach, will still live on, albeit as weak as it was when it was a newborn. Take a good long hard look at the times you claim music survived in, and ask yourself, would you want to go back to them? When you had one or two choices in artists, when they came around every 6 months or so, when their music was limited to what they could carry with them, when there were no recordings, when there was no internet? Oh sure, we will have the internet afterwards, but we're not going to have any recordings to use it with, if artists decide to no longer record. Music survived then, it flourishes today.
The idea that work entitles you to ownership of the results of that work is, I think, a modern one, and not accepted by many people in the same way that other forms of ownership is accepted.
You're kidding. That raises so many questions. For example, what makes the place you were born at so special that you have a right to live there? What about people who don't want to live in a reasonable proximity to where they were born? Should we reserve them an empty plot too? What if people want to move near a place where you've been born? Do we let them? Do you honestly believe that anyone who wants to buy land is "mega-rich"? What's wrong with "mega-rich"? What is "mega-rich"? What would that imply about other types of property if it could be retroactively claimed, even after sale? What's stopping you from buying back your land, if it's so precious (surely you could petition the money back from your parents, and pay it back later)? If there are no property rights on land, and if a squatter moves in, do you just have to grin and bear it? Are we to give up our privacy rights along with everything else?
Even communism has property, because it's owned by the state. At least then issues can potentially be actually be resolved, rather than just ignored.
There is a huge difference in me being peeved that someone THINKS I'm trying to impress them with my gadgets and some douche who walks around TRYING to impress people with cheap, stupid gadgets.
Yeah, just like there's a big difference between being peeved that someone THINKS you're trying to impress them with cheap, stupid gadgets, and someone TRYING to impress people with their iPhone.
So yeah, I get what you are trying to say...I look like some hypocrite being judgmental, and not wanting to be judged myself. That would be true IF I EVER DENIED BEING JUDGMENTAL MYSELF in the first place, which I haven't done in my post.
No, you are a hypocrite, even if you don't care. The good news is that because I have never used (nor am I in the market for) a bluetooth headset, I don't care if you're a hypocrite on the subject. It was just amusing to read, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
In short, I don't think the GP deserved the flamebait mod.
Huh. Say what you like, but acupuncture works. I doubt you've ever tried it, and I guess you feel you don't have to generally say alternative medicine is a huge scam, but it does work wonders for some things. It doesn't use medical/scientific jargon to explain itself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
I agree with the concept, but let's face it, no man, beast, nor corporation has ever been given a death sentence for fraud, an nor should they be.
"Full" means however much people as a whole are willing to pay, i.e. the amount anyone else selling anything else would get selling anything else of equivalent worth. Like I said, he contradicted himself.
... just like some people pay $100 a week for the right to imagine they own a house. Yeah, that's it. They just want to imagine they own it, and being able to have comfort and shelter are just side-effects.
I swear intellectual property is subjected to the biggest double standards here at Slashdot since Microsoft.
I guess the question is not so much whether "these people" deserve it, as whether you deserve it. Well, perhaps not you you, but at least other people.
There is basically no evidence to the contrary. The counter-copyright culture has been nutured in an environment of rich culture, which we enjoy today. We have thousands upon thousands of options for artistic entertainment, and music has penetrated our lives so deeply that the world would seem odd without it. With this rich culture, interwoven so subtly yet completely into our lives, I guess it would only seem natural that the artistic inspiration it brings comes from some underutilised natural part of the human mind, but it doesn't. It comes from being thouroughly aquainted with music. Without all this music, there is nothing (or much, much less) to work towards, to bounce ideas off of, to encourage and inspire.
It seems fairly obvious to me that more money into the field produces more works. I have gone over the prinicple in great detail, breaking it into logical components, shown with an almost mathematical certainty that the concept holds, plus I've given you an easy test to show it in practice (Remember? Look at the free culture vs the restricted one?). With less works, that produces less inspiration, which produces less desire to create works, which produces less works, and so the cycle continues. It may not kill music off completely, but it'll do a fine job at trying.
That's it. That's my argument, explained yet again, in yet another form. I fell as though I've been repeating my self ad nauseum, so this is probably where I'll end it, unless I find something else of interest further down.
As for my comment that you were replying to, one of my original points was that by using the bands you like (not just the two, obviously) as the model, you guarantee only their survival. As a matter of fact, you can see by looking at indie collections that they happen to be predisposed to some kinds of music more than others. For example, I have yet to see a full orchestral piece of music in an indie collection (perhaps you could prove me wrong?), but I do see a lot of standard rock bands and a lot of electronic/techno stuff, and a lot of it is IMHO pretty low grade. Anyway, the reality is that if copyrighted business hit rock bottom, that's what we'll be left with, so you had better like it, or you're stuffed. Now, however, I've changed my mind. Not even that will survive the vacume of inspiration.
Well, what do you know! Something of interest! ;)
My reasoning is in the quotes, not in that list. That list is an effigy of hyperbolic extensions to generic pro-copyright arguments. It implies that the purpose of my opinions is to make the labels money, which is patently false.
Like I said, labels don't end up giving some artists money (or much money) because that money is used to pay for recording services. As for the artists taking a loss, it just happens to be a good business decision to take a small loss (and it can only be smaller than the loss that would have been suffered under no copyright) and produce a better selling one later. They can afford to do that, because copyright has brought them money and a safety net (the label).
Of course, that's all theoretical, and says nothing about the often woeful implementations of patents, however, I maintain that there is nothing conceptually wrong with patents.
... with caveats. Your argument makes a nice soundbite, but falls flat when you look at actual implementation. Only some kinds of information can be owned under current laws, which are geared towards keeping personal exchanges free. Even if owned information can make its way into personal exchanges, and there isn't some exception/grey area (e.g. fair use), then the damage caused by such exchanges are very limited, and hence they are not worth enforcing. Danger of totalitarian society is still minimal.
I also think it's interesting that IP (generally) has absolutely nothing to do with birthplaces, birthrights, etc, and has not been completely staked (not even close). I.e. it possesses none of the characteristics that turned you away from property, yet you still oppose it. Why?
Is that a song you're parodying? Or is your rhyming and rhythmic phrasing just a coincidence?
I believe the policy is more of a "give it here, or get the f*** out" policy. You are perfectly entitled to your possessions, but if you wish to remain in the park, you will be required to store them, but it's your choice either way. I don't think it's that unreasonable.
Ah, but if we make only the music you like at all viable, then I won't have a choice, will I? That's why I support copyright. It brings richer culture and more choice.
I'm extremely hesitant to provide any sort of validation to that claim. For one, it implies an objectivity in music tastes that simply isn't there. You say I don't have to like the same music as you, but that's just so long as I agree that the best music is created casually. For two, I find it a gross generalisation. I know some good musicians who's primary means of income are music, and a lot less who are casual musicians. For three, it makes little sense. Why would having less time/money to spend creating music and honing musical talent be a good thing? The fact that they are casual musicians indicates more to me that they are more likely to be enthusiastic, rather than talented.
I'm still having trouble grasping why. You have said that music will survive, but you've made no mention of numbers. You haven't pointed out why the same people creating music now will continue to create when the bills stop being paid, or when they have to work another job. Logically, you would think that some of them, especially the ones doing it tough now, would drop out of the race. What would stop them, or what would fill the gap?
Which is why we need a change. You know why some artists are failing to make money of recordings? It's because the fees for the services the RIAA provides comes out of the profits the recording sales. All too often, the lacklustre sales fail to leave the artist any profit. Thanks to piracy (and other factors) the barrier of entry has been raised. One thing I can assure you is that it won't get any better if we scrap copyright. Sales will be even more lacklustre, money to record will be even more scarce, and recording will die a quiet death.
They make some money, but sometimes that isn't enough to fully recoup costs. More popular ones will though. If sales drop further, then they won't even be worth the publicity. Besides publicity costs as well. It costs to advertise and to promote. Word of mouth takes a while to develop and usually requires promotion beforehand, so that the band becomes a household name. One that people are comfortable recommending to their friends.
Some people don't. Some people aren't confident of their abilities. Some people would rather not be judged. Some people, while they think it would be nice to be famous, realise that without laying some serious cash down, they can't be anything more than a lost filename on a P2P network. Actually, I was trying out jamendo.com, and I tried downloading one album. It gave me a torrent, and of course, there were absolutely no peers. If you don't already have notoriety, you need advertising.
I see two scenarios. One is the idealised scenario, where bands don't (and can't) restrict sharing of their music, but they have
That's you. Music tastes aren't some homogeneous collective concept that can be moulded to fit the music scene. The most efficient solution is to allow tastes to mould the music scene to fit. I don't want to be told that I should be liking the same music as you. Perhaps as a libertarian, you can appreciate that.
No, money is and always has been an option. You don't have to take it. It's completely up to the artist whether or not they want money for their efforts. What you're doing is telling them what their choice is. Some may be fine under servitude under their fans (Who am I kidding? Servants get more money than donations! Optional slavery would be better fitting) but many others will justifiably want out.
If artists are making no money of recordings (which is the natural consequence of piracy), then they will stop producing them. Some people have desires to create music, some people have desires to perform music, a few have desire to create and perform music when money is tight, and even fewer have those desires, plus are somewhat good at what they do, but I don't believe that there is some innate desire in human beings to distribute recordings, not if they're performing. You are rewarding performance and performance only. Why would they bother investing in good recordings if it's a thankless job?
Also, it's not just the current generation of music which will suffer (if we reduce our choices to not-for-profit part-time bands), it will be the next generations as well. When our selection of music is cut down, we will have less to draw from. People will listen to less music (having less access to it), and will fail to be inspired. Currently, we have a diverse musical culture, thanks in no small part to copyright, which has inspired many a musician to think "I like that, I might play with that", or "I could do that, but much better", or any other similar statement. Consequently our musical culture continues to diversify and evolve. By cutting down our choices, you are cutting down our inspiration. You may find that in 10 years, the few artists out there who still feel the need to create music will sound extremely similar to the indie music of today, and they will have little internal diversity.
You keep saying that, and I acknowledge that it's true: even if you destroy every bit of progress we've made, take away every incentive, music, like a bloody cockroach, will still live on, albeit as weak as it was when it was a newborn. Take a good long hard look at the times you claim music survived in, and ask yourself, would you want to go back to them? When you had one or two choices in artists, when they came around every 6 months or so, when their music was limited to what they could carry with them, when there were no recordings, when there was no internet? Oh sure, we will have the internet afterwards, but we're not going to have any recordings to use it with, if artists decide to no longer record. Music survived then, it flourishes today.
You're kidding. That raises so many questions. For example, what makes the place you were born at so special that you have a right to live there? What about people who don't want to live in a reasonable proximity to where they were born? Should we reserve them an empty plot too? What if people want to move near a place where you've been born? Do we let them? Do you honestly believe that anyone who wants to buy land is "mega-rich"? What's wrong with "mega-rich"? What is "mega-rich"? What would that imply about other types of property if it could be retroactively claimed, even after sale? What's stopping you from buying back your land, if it's so precious (surely you could petition the money back from your parents, and pay it back later)? If there are no property rights on land, and if a squatter moves in, do you just have to grin and bear it? Are we to give up our privacy rights along with everything else?
Even communism has property, because it's owned by the state. At least then issues can potentially be actually be resolved, rather than just ignored.
Nope. Copyright holders can do whatever they want with their works.