Probably looks like this.
Obviously, as this gets finer and finer, and eventually it becomes trivial. You'll have to decide for yourself where that occurs.
As an analogy, most people would say that going 100 miles over the speed limit in a residential zone is dangerous and immoral. So is going 50 mph over. Well, going 10 mph *is* more dangerous, just not a lot. Maybe it's a little immoral to raise the danger to adults and children in the neighborhood just so you can get somewhere a little faster. Then what about 5 mph? 2 mph? 1 mph?
We're adults here. We can use our judgement. (But I reserve the right to criticize the guy who's fine with going 25mph over the speed limit when they're kids about.)
If you're in the top 1%, you're probably earning 20-30K a year. Not millions. Don't mistake the top 0.0001% with the top 1%.
But perhaps earning tens of thousands a year is so much money that you find it acceptable that the publishers can now stop paying him, and companies that wish to use his work no longer need compensate him.
But I don't believe it's so. (So, not a matter of morality, just my preference.)
I would disagree with "no reason". I have enough respect for the artistic process and for artists to understand what having your music involuntarily turned into advertisement jingles would do to many artists. The involuntary commercialization of what is often part of one's soul is troubling enough, that I would say it balances others' natural rights.
But I don't claim this as grand truth, just preference.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the idea that one's work can be selling well, but you are living in poverty just strikes me as wrong enough that I prefer the artist at least own their work for the duration of their lifetime. After all, *very* few artists are successful for more than a few years, and I consider the body of an artists work to be their pension.
Also, can you imagine what it would be like to have your song suddenly appearing in all sorts of ads for products you hate? For publishers to start paying hacks to write new stories for the characters that you breathed life into?
I know too many artists that would be shattered by the experience. However, I'd not argue it as a matter of morality. Just a matter of preference.
However, if you want to actually make a living, popularity isn't important *unless* it results in revenue. It's a nice ego-boo, but if you want to put a roof over your kids' heads and food on their table, you can't put popularity in the bank.
(I always laugh at the "I love his work so much, I've pirated everything he's ever done." It's usually done with such sincerity.)
Don't think there's much to disagree with there. The idea that the RIAA enjoys special protections in law seems absurd. It is also likely to be short-lived. The cost of having terrible contracts is that it makes going one's own way, which is becoming more practical (although still very difficult), very attractive.
I won't mourn the loss of the big labels, but given that I am aware of most of the music I buy *because* of the label's efforts, it would be rather hypocritical of me to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but refuse to compensate them for it.
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
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.