What you don't understand is that music production is expensive and if you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night. There is only one Mona Lisa by davinci, would you pay a lot for a copy? Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right. The artist and the label should be paid. How do you people live in a capitalist society and not understand the basic principal of our economic system. An artist mushy spend $100000 in studio expenses and instruments along with weeks of work and tons of creative effort. And you think you should just be able to get that stuff for free? You think the studio should provide a million dollar recording studio for free? Music and art are a business and just be user distribution mean gods changed doesn't change how the business works.
Let's take this assertion by assertion.
1) What you don't understand....
Are you sure I don't understand? Or maybe you're not getting part of what I was saying?
2) Music production is expensive
It doesn't have to be. As I said, I've produced music. I've also performed music and recorded music. I've never spent more than $100/sitting for studio time; if you don't go with the major labels, you don't have to pay the major fees -- and the equipment has got to the point where recording and production doesn't really cost all that much in real expenses -- even Garage Band can handle basic production tasks (but doesn't have the recording room, which IS a major sunk expense). These days, I just trade studio time for services, and it costs me nothing but my time (and keeps my ears sharp).
3) If you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night.
I've never played I. Clubs. Of course, as a musician, I've never made it my day job either. But I could easily do so simply using an indy producer and social media, and not sell myself to the major labels, who might or might not decide to promote me. There's lots of ways to make a living as a musician; just not as a pop star -- because just like sports stars, there's only room for a few of those. Entitlement doesn't put food on the table.
4) There is only one Mona Lisa....
I personally wouldn't pay for a copy. I can see it online, I can make duplicates, take photos of it, etc. Copies are in the public domain. And da Vinci isn't going to be making any money off it anyway -- and didn't have copyright on his side back in the day; people copied his work freely, and yet people still appreciate it. So how did he make a living? He was a good painter, and people paid him to paint things. I think this example kind of proves my point much better than it proves yours.
5) Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right.
So you think it's wrong that I can copy and distribute the Mona Lisa daily? Do you think it's wrong that Disney can copy and distribute such titles as Cinderella, Mulan, Pocohantas, etc. daily, and even charge money for them? Because that's also copying the works of others. Or is your problem only with works that were produced by people still alive, who are expecting a certain level of remuneration for what they created?
6) The artist and the label should be paid.
Time to review my comments you replied to. Personally, I think the artist should be paid a lot MORE. I think labels should for the most part be abolished. I think recording studios should get paid what they charge the musicians, and if demand drops because someone can do it for less, then they don't deserve to be paid more, just because they want it. Right now, the labels only use specific studios, and so the studios have a monopoly on the labels' musicians, and can charge what they want (which gets paid by the labels, and docked against the musicians' contract).
The bigger question, and the point I was raising is WHO should pay the artist? In my view, this should be either a patron, crowdfunding, or someone backing the work being produced, with the understanding that what's being produced is a cultural artifact, not a physical good.
7) How do you people live in a capitalist society and not understand the basic principal of our economic system.
Multiple parts here... "you people" -- you mean the large segment of informed people who disagree with your narrow view of music and how it can be owned?
"live in a capitalist society" -- how do you know where I live? As it turns out, I live in a socialist society (not a communist society, but a social society -- yes, society even has social as its root).
But even in a capitalist society, if you're really playing by pure capitalist rules, the copyright construct would be abolished. People would pay for capital, not for ideas. There'd be less music professionally produced, it would probably be less diverse, but there'd be a HUGE folk music scene with music that wasn't professionally produced. And people would sell their music services at the rate that matched the demand, instead of labels creating artificial scarcity based on restrictive laws. It seems that I'm not the one not understanding the basic principles of capitalism and capitalist economics here.
8) An artist mushy spend $100000 in studio expenses and instruments along with weeks of work and tons of creative effort.
I think I've already covered that; it's provably false. It's the system that promotes current treatment of musical works that makes it cost so much for the artist. It's all about erecting barriers to entry to increase the value of each product released.
And weeks of work? Really? I spend YEARS on the stuff I create. I also do other things at the same time. Anything musically that's done in weeks is pretty much worthless, or is based almost totally on the works of others. And if you think a musician deserves money because they overspent on production, put in a few weeks on development and invested tons of creative effort... let me introduce you to the real world, where life doesn't work that way. I also write software. Some of it I've never got any money for at all, despite the fact that I know it's been used by others to make a profit. Most development houses spend months on new features, let alone the product itself.
Producing stuff takes LOTS of work. But you aren't entitled to making money just because you worked hard to produce something. People need to see value in it that makes them want to buy it. Usually, you do some market analysis first to see if you can find a buyer of your production services before you begin, or shortly after you begin, so that your sunk costs don't end up worthless.
On this note, it might be useful for more musicians to start using an agile methodology; work in sprints, produce something, make it available for consumption, and if people are willing to pay for it, use that money for the next round of development and production. If it turns out that nobody likes your work well enough to actually pay for it, quit while you're ahead, or figure out what you need to fix. You aren't entitled to being paid for it. Whether people borrow the ideas or not is beside the point.
9) And you think you should just be able to get that stuff for free? You think the studio should provide a million dollar recording studio for free?
I think you've totally missed my point. Why is it a million dollar recording studio in the first place? And everyone CAN get the "stuff" for free -- once it is shared, it's shared. You can't take it back again. That doesn't mean people should just go out and grab a product and distribute it for profit themselves; that's unfair competition. But it's also not what I was talking about. Some people are so caught up in a specific business model that they don't see how it harms society as a whole, and don't see the other alternatives that are already out there and being used, to make a living. Copyright is an imaginary construct; without it, music would be free. This is the point the GGP was making and that I agreed with.
10) Music and art are a business and just be user distribution mean gods changed doesn't change how the business works.
Businesses go bankrupt all the time; it's important how they execute their business plan. The current Labels-based music business is based on creating artificial monopolies at the expense of music in general, in order to funnel a large amount of money back to the middlemen. A business that doesn't turn a profit on its own merits doesn't survive, unless it is propped up by the government by things like copyright. This doesn't sound very capitalist, does it?
As I said before: Anyone who actually produces intellectual property who would feel threatened by things becoming free needs to take a hard look at why they feel threatened. Do they feel like they are currently being paid more than what they develop is actually worth on an open market?