> Music changes peoples lives. It defines generations. To many, it is one of the most important things in the world.
I agree that music is incredibly valuable to us as a society. Ever since we crowded around the tribal campfire, our species has been almost pre-wired to appreciate music in this way. So the question I'd put forward, is how much of that value is created by the artists and how much of that value is created by the listeners? In the absence of the songs that "define generations" would we not have seen other songs fill the gap to define those generations? Or are those generation-defining songs so unique that, without them, there would be an unfilled void?
This is where I believe the current copyright laws err. While I'm genuinely posing the above questions, I've also mainly formulated my opinions on the answers to those questions and I believe that most of the value that you're recognizing in music comes from the fact that so many of us have, collectively, listened to the music rather than some inherent virtue of the music or skill of the artist. Once you accept that premise, it argues for things like vastly expanded non-commercial fair use rights or a loosening of the control that artists have to maximize the value realized by communities experiencing music together.
> artists deserve to be paid for their works
Most reasonable people would agree. Just how much and how often they're paid is an entirely different question and one where I strongly believe the artists (and record labels) shouldn't be the only ones with a say in the matter.
I agree that music is incredibly valuable to us as a society. Ever since we crowded around the tribal campfire, our species has been almost pre-wired to appreciate music in this way. So the question I'd put forward, is how much of that value is created by the artists and how much of that value is created by the listeners? In the absence of the songs that "define generations" would we not have seen other songs fill the gap to define those generations? Or are those generation-defining songs so unique that, without them, there would be an unfilled void?
This is where I believe the current copyright laws err. While I'm genuinely posing the above questions, I've also mainly formulated my opinions on the answers to those questions and I believe that most of the value that you're recognizing in music comes from the fact that so many of us have, collectively, listened to the music rather than some inherent virtue of the music or skill of the artist. Once you accept that premise, it argues for things like vastly expanded non-commercial fair use rights or a loosening of the control that artists have to maximize the value realized by communities experiencing music together.
> artists deserve to be paid for their works
Most reasonable people would agree. Just how much and how often they're paid is an entirely different question and one where I strongly believe the artists (and record labels) shouldn't be the only ones with a say in the matter.