WHY NOT FREE? (Score 1)

Every single logical argument brought up in the discussion of art leads to one conclusion: Art is opinion. People choose if they like something or not, if they like the person making it or not, if they like the format it was made in or not, etc. so how is it possible to say that one certain creation over another can be priced? On top of all of this, I hate to mention it but you're going to become way overwhelmed once you start in on TRUE copyrights. Who created language? Who created the guitar that you're using? Where do the copyrights for them come from? Who made music in the first place? YOU CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTiONS. Too many, too long. Art is art; art is and always will be free. Make me something that cures my cancer. Perhaps define what it means to make a creation that is beneficial to the human race and something that is beneficial to the mood of the human race and perhaps then we can decide what to charge for and what not. Then again, I'm a little nuts but I go off into the grand conclusion that money shouldn't exist. I suppose I was born a few thousand years too early for the grand connection of this human race to come to that quite sound conclusion. It's just not rational enough, yet, kinda like trying to formulate schools in the times of neanderthals beating women until they bore their children. Just can't work yet. But hey, as McGuiness mentioned, one year in "internet time" is like 10 in "non net" time. Maybe we can get the ball rolling even faster in the most proper direction. It would have been nice for those mothers before ours to have a greater source of communication to learn from and utilize. But I'm not concerned about the human race. It will do what it will do, grow in which ways and speeds it desires, and in the end, all that matters is right now, and how broke I am and how much I love music. Sorry, Mr. McGuiness, for thinking the band you represent makes great music, but not being born into a family of monetary convenience. -- Heidi