[marknutter]

> This sounds nice, but the problem is that the author creates value

Ok, so what type of "value" are we talking about here and what determines this value? Is it economic value? The only reliable way to determine economic value is scarcity. If something is abundantly available (like oxygen or sunlight) its value in this regard is exactly zero. Anybody can obtain it and nobody can prevent it from being obtained. So in that regard I don't buy the argument that the artist has created economic value.

They have, however, created intrinsic cultural value. But cultural value is a completely subjective metric. How do we determine this value? Perhaps by counting the number of people who "appreciate" the art by obtaining it, legally or otherwise. But that would suggest that popular art is always more valuable than unpopular art, which we all can probably agree is false.

Starving artists are caught in a catch-22 situation. Until they become popular, their music is essentially worthless. Pirates, by copying and distributing their music for them, are actually adding value to their art. Most starving artists have a hard time giving their music away, let alone selling it, and I've yet to see one budding artist get upset about their music going viral. At what point does the artist stop encouraging the free and open spread of their art and start discouraging it by enforcing copyright law? And would they not be hypocritical by doing so?

[res0nat0r]

>Pirates, by copying and distributing their music for them, are actually adding value to their art.

Except where they don't add value by pirating something they otherwise would have paid for if it wasn't easily available to pirate with hardly any downside risk.