Re:Folk music (Score 1)

A few things.

I agree with you that "Copyrighted entertainment is as new as the means to copy the entertainment is. Copyright came right behind the printing press. It expanded after the player piano. Being able to copy creative works changes how things work."

Each time a new technology comes along enabling the distribution of creative works, a new business model evolves exploiting that technology. Depending on the business model, new legislation is introduced to support the new industry. There is usually a period of flux, with a lot of people getting it wrong on all fronts. You cite the player piano affecting copyright law as an example. It also brings to mind the trouble that US movie industry had with with Betamax when it was first introduced. Went all the way to the supreme court. Of course, after it was realized that the home VCR was not going to go away, the film industry changed its model of distribution. Ask any film exec what they would think now about outlawing the home VCR. (OK, now stuff like TIVO) I think we all know what their response would be.

However, the introduction of a new business model does not mean that the old one is broken. To use your example, there is a big difference between going to see a live performance and seeing a recorded version of that same performance. The Grateful Dead are a perfect example of this. They encouraged the distribution of bootleg recordings of their concerts, setting up special sections in the seats for folks with tape recorders. Their record sales were not exactly stellar. Still, they managed to be one of the top revenue producing live acts of time, sustaining a market over decades. In the case of music, the establishment of a new medium, the recording, did nothing to break the business model of live performance.

To add a little personal experience to the discussion, I have friends that are musicians (amateur and professional), and they all still sit around in there homes and entertain themselves and anyone else who cares to listen / participate. For free. It's called a Jam session. And a lot of what happens in these sessions get transfered on to a more "professional" element of the practice.

Yes, the potential quality of creative works is increased by the amount of time that one is allowed to spend on it. And the amount of time that you can spend doing anything creative is always balanced by the amount of time that you need to spend getting the resources to put food in your mouth. No argument there. While the traditional notion of copyright can be effectively used by authors of more conventional media to economically sustain their practices, digital artists may be better suited to a different business model. Much like the film industry did with video. Its not just about the shared paradigm of content distribution being better for the consumers of a culture. More importantly, it could be better for the producers of that culture. I think the FOSS guys are getting it right more or less. I don't think that artists are (for the most part).

I am currently doing research on this topic as well, trying to develop a collaborative method for contemporary artists using digital media. I am curious to see what comes of this project.

Finally I have to whole heartedly agree with your last point. If you value the work of any artist, you should support them. That does not just mean give them money. Spread the word to others about the work, send them feedback on the work, and yes, give them money.