> So you refuse to get paid for your work? If you publish a book or make a
> record of songs you wrote and learned to make beautiful, I and all others
> can copy it for free or just plain steal it? Pretty amazing altruism! Or
> is it conservatism -- i.e., sacrificing of others welfare for your
> principles?
Wow! You really are behind the curve. If I have time in the next few days, I'll dig out some article citations.
One of the major misconceptions about intellectual property is that it protects artists ability to make money. In reality, IP chiefly exists for the benefit of large corporations who can employ lawyers to enforce the idea that IP exists. See the continued efforts by the RIAA to sue file traders (which is mostly a facade in a war that was won by the file sharers).
Even in the era of file sharing, artists continue to produce works and make a living. If anything, file sharing has leveled the playing field. Instead of the music industry arbirtarily creating a small stable of stars, the Internet has enabled thousands of musicians to find audiences for their work. They make money selling songs, but more importantly they develop a fan base, which is more likely to pay for concerts. Given that many music fans still "collect" music, there is a market for physical recordings. Things like Ipods, XM radio, and file sharing have just increased the opportunities for the small artists. These may be rough times for U2, Britney Spears, and other mega stars, but it's a wonderful time for small artists.
The business crowd calls this disintermediation. In other words, getting rid of the middle man, which everybody knows as that corrupt system consisting of the music industry, big chain music stores, and radio stations that play limited playlists. File sharing and new technologies have smashed this exclusive distribution system.
Chuck