[jacquesm]

You really have no idea what you're talking about here. An industry that has had almost a century to prepare has a considerable legal advantage over rookie musicians, who can usually barely afford their instruments, let alone proper representation.

> I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.

Such a structure will eventually unfold, we're looking at a lively market here.

Just like open source didn't kill software development wholesale copying won't kill the music market. But it will kill the current business model.

[fnid2]

You have no idea of what I have an idea. Why do conversations here seem to degrade into "You don't know what you're talking about?" Or as camperbob puts it, "Clearly you've thought a lot about this?"

bit sharing and open source are two topics that are so religious around here. This community has a huge axe to grind against powerful organizations who have profited off intellectual property. Why?

What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?

[hxa7241]

> What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?

Because the current system works by an artificial monopoly. Monopolies harm the public. The compensation that copyright is supposed to provide -- incentivising production -- is not clearly supported by evidence. And the restriction inherent in monopolised distribution is fundamentally opposed to the new benefits that the internet offers -- if we want one, the other must be reduced -- and we want the internet.

The problem is not people profiting from creating, it is that the system has been rigged by current encumbents to rip-off and obstruct the public.