Actually that's an interesting point. I'll have to be careful about equating the two. It's the manner of competition that matters.

Yet, somehow they still make plenty of money.

Indeed, there are dozens of people who are making enough to live on off of YouTube! No wonder it's a replacement for an industry that allows tens of thousands to make a living!

Look, I'm obviously exaggerating, but not by a whole lot. Google isn't distributing a whole lot of money compared to the entire music industry. To be honest, your attitude smacks of having the car industry collapse, and telling the workers they should make hand-crafted bicycles instead. It's simply condescending.

Now maybe that's the way the industry is going, and many will suffer. But pretending YouTube is an adequate replacement is just a kick in the teeth to those actually trying to earn a living in the industry. (Or you're very young and have no concept of economics, in which case, my apologies for getting annoyed.)

The idea of an reasonably successful artist (say top 1% earning 20-30K a year) facing poverty even when the works of his youth are still selling well strikes me as unpleasant enough that I'd push for artist lifetime. Likewise, losing important income while you're trying to put your kids through college, etc. If an artist is *extremely* lucky, their work is their pension. Depriving them of it just seems cruel.

But I wouldn't claim a big moral division on either side. It's a matter of trade-offs for society.

I suspect that would take optimism pretty close to the physics equivalent of the speed of light :-). But point taken.

Actually, I'm fine with copyright of max(28 years, artist's life).

I have to say that I really have contempt for people who use something that is pretty artistically outrageous (lengthening of copyrights) as their excuse for stealing from contemporary artists. Disgraceful.

Yes. But so what? That makes the *AA pretty unpleasant. But it in no way justifies ripping off everybody from the artist on up who made it possible for you to listen to the music.

Actually, no, I'm *not* concerned about the legal repercussions or legal definition. I am concerned about the moral, not legal justification for copyright theft.

I don't care whether people pirate or not. I do care that that they understand that it's a moral wrong. Not necessarily a huge wrong, but that it *is* a wrong, and they're doing it.

It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases. The difference is a matter of (significant) scale.

Or take a lower stakes example - my 10 year old friend plagiarizes my essay without permission and submits it. Now I will get an "F" if I submit mine. I still have my essay, but I've lost the ability to exploit it.

And of course, let's takes what *really* happens if copyright disappears. Corporations troll for artistic content that looks promising, copy it and put their name on it. They promote the hell out of it and sell it (albeit at bargain basement prices) as their own.

Get over it. When I was a kid, I pirated as well. I wanted lots of stuff, and I couldn't afford it all, so I stole it because I could get away with it with no danger to myself, and I could do it in my own home. But at least I wasn't a sad enough case to try to morally justify ripping off the publishers and artists with various garbage excuses about how I couldn't have afforded it all, so obviously I wasn't stealing.

Okay, given the deficit of imagination here, let me spell it out. My client tells me he will purchase program X for $Y.

Except my client takes the program and doesn't pay because he doesn't believe in copyright, and I've still got the original program, so he hasn't stolen anything (according to many pirates). I haven't lost the program - all I've lost is the ability to economically exploit it. And yet almost all of us will acknowledge I've had my work stolen.

Look, a 6-year old knows that someone who copies your work without your permission is stealing. It's only adults who try and dress it up so they don't have to feel bad about ripping people off so they can get free stuff. I don't care if people pirate, but if they are going to, at least they can be honest that they're stealing because they can get away with it, rather than dress it up in some self-righteous garbage.

Another irregular verb: I pirate his work, he steals my work.

And if I was a lawyer, I wouldn't be talking about piracy either.

I am not a lawyer, and the semantics of law are immaterial to this discussion.

But taking what does not belong to you is generally understood by almost every English speaker as theft - whether the theft is of a tangible item, the opportunity to economically exploit something you created, or even a person's freedom.

As I've said elsewhere, I'd be okay with max(28 years, artist's lifetime).

I don't think artists who are lucky enough to be successful should be denied what is essentially their only pension - the fruits of a lifetime worth of labor. While I can understand artists wanting to provide for their children, I think 28 years is probably sufficient to cover that end.

> But who is going to want to intentionally install DRM on a new release that's known to have been completely ineffective for years?

I find the Apple system works well. It's can be easily circumvented if necessary, but for most people, it's just easier to operate within the ecosystem.

I have to defer to your correctness of you nuance. You are absolutely correct on all points.

And just to be clear, I do find the copyright extensions are ridiculous. I'd be in favor of max(28 years, artists life), as I don't think longer than that causes much more art to be created.

> all those people pay to MAFIAA. MAFIAA pays the actual artists and makes all the decisions about what new art will get funded.

Okay, let's get a few things straight. Going with the labels or the studios is a *voluntary* decision. The option has always been there to go outside, and very few artists chose that route, mostly because the chance of success without a label or studio backing you was even smaller. One of the really interesting things is that technology has improved so that it's actually possible to do without them, which I think is a good thing. (I like artists to have the choice.)

However, if copyright is practically destroyed, then short of going to the patron model (which Kickstarter tends to devolve into where artists are concerned - it's easier to find the one fanatic $1,000 donor than find 100 $10 dollar supporters), the artist is screwed if they go it alone. No just selling it on the open market (well, you can, but at that point you're depending on charity).

First, no artist was *ever* forced to go through the big labels. Until recently, they provide better access to the market place than anything else (and I think we're all better off because of it), but that is a *choice*. Big difference. Having your work pirated is *not* your choice.

Second, in the last 100 years, we've seen a huge increase in the variety of music, books and art that is generally available to the public that puts any other era in human history to shame. If the *IAA have successfully stifled creativity, it's pretty hard to tell. (Remember, the era of real RIAA power is 1960-1995, often considered the "golden age").

And lastly, the idea that pirating artist's music is justified because you don't like the RIAA makes about as much sense as piloting jet planes into buildings because you don't like American foreign policy. There's a massive logical disconnect between the action and the target of hatred.

Honestly, I find hatred of the RIAA pretty thin moral justification for stealing from artists. Honestly, I don't care if you're stealing. Maybe you can't afford the media (but can afford several hundred dollars for a computer to post here). But let's not pretend it isn't stealing, even if it's pretty low level.