Most of the poor get richer slowly as technology raises their standard of living.

No, his point was that wealth is relative.

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.

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).

I'm firmly in the "reform copyright" camp. That is, I think copyright is a useful economic tool for promoting creation and distribution of new work, but the current implementation of copyright law is deeply flawed and no longer fit for purpose in most of the western world.

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.

It's not *impossible* to be able to survive providing free culture, but honestly, I hope you don't have anyone depending upon you for income, because the odds are not in your favor. Best of luck, anyway.

However, no matter how optimistic you are, what becomes clear is that if copyright dies in a practical sense, you cannot make a living as an artist. You might be able to make it as a businessman / artist on the side, but if fundamentally you can't get paid for your art, but only for your {merchandise, stage presence, likability, etc.}, then the market fundamentally changes, and probably not in a good way.

One thing becomes clear, like free-to-play games, the vast majority of money comes from a few real patrons with deep pockets. For artists who actually need to support themselves and, heaven forbid, a family, you survive not by producing work true to you, but by pleasing those few patrons upon which your livelihood depends.

I think the artistic community is *far* better served with a democratic model where a large number of people pay a little rather than a few people paying a lot. Artists still need to serve a community, but can draw upon a much larger group, and is dependent on no single customer.

Indeed, the idea the absurd idea that artists might make based on what spoke to them, and if it appealed to enough people, allow them not starve, is an absurd misstep in history. Anyone with a brain knows that in order for artists to produce, they must produce only what appeals to those with money and power to patronize them, for *that* is the only way for an artists to survive.

No wonder the quality of the arts has dropped in the last 100 years. Time for this historical aberration to end.

Once they're no longer living in their parents basement, they're also driven to eat.

If you don't want to make provisions for your content creators to be paid, expect your music to be like the musician in the coffee shop, your books to be like fan-fic, and your movies to be closer to YouTube videos. Not all are terrible and some are excellent, but for most consumers, not a match for what they enjoy today.

I'm a programmer - I'd be upset if my Boss told me he was taking the code I wrote, but not paying me. And then told me it wasn't stealing, because I still had the source on my hard drive. So I understand if content providers don't see the difference between piracy and theft - I don't.

Some of these theory classes may provide better insight, and lacking them may limit you if you're attempting to enter a highly specialized, complex field with no demonstrable experience in it (which, by the by, doesn't really happen), but for 98% of your day job, it's going to be more important for you to know how to parse and sanitize input than it will be for you to know how to write a compiler, raytracer, decompose a function into mathematical terms, perform a Big-O analysis, design a memory manager for an OS, and you'll probably never use matrices or differential equations.