[res0nat0r]

The artist is promised a cut of a sale of an album when it is purchased, since it is being copied (which is still illegal if I'm not mistaken) and not purchased he isn't getting paid either. Hence he should be getting paid for his work.

It seems the sentiment has become one of: since music and movies are easy enough to copy online without me getting in trouble, and for free, the price of art should also drop to zero as a whole. This doesn't look like something anyone in the music or movie industry would think is a good thing would it?

[Dylan16807]

But nobody at all promised to purchase the album. That's the difference. An employer agreed upfront to purchase your work. I could promise you a cut of just about any action, and you wouldn't ipso facto be morally owed people performing that action.

What matters is not what an industry thinks, but what is best for society. I personally think a couple decades of copyright is a good thing but it does not equate to employment.

[res0nat0r]

I don't really equate the fact that music has become easy to copy that the expectation is you shouldn't have to pay for it anymore if you don't feel like it, and that is best for society.