[cubedice]

See, but this is very much the problem. Records provided an unequal distribution of wealth amongst performing artists before the internet. Why pay to listen to an up-and-coming classical artist when an exquisite recording of Chopin's work all ready exists?

Now, the internet has magnified this even further. An incredibly narrow band of artists are currently being compensated in any way (live performance, merch, cds), and this trend appears to be continuing. In general, the life of a performing musician pretty much sucks. Take a blog post by David Byrne I found on here awhile ago http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2009/08/080809-edinburgh-so-ho... . He's working pretty damn hard, and he's famous!

I'm not saying that file sharing is inherently wrong, I'm just saying deep down, we know there's a system that will rise out of this that will undoubtedly be regulated. I'd rather be having that discussion, than saying 'oh, I wouldn't have paid for that'

[tdavis]

The Internet has been indispensable in my quest to find up-and-coming artists! Many of the bands I've learned about have been introduced at random by Pandora. I've gone on to buy quite a few albums (and seen shows) thanks to that passive discovery process.

...we know there's a system that will rise out of this that will undoubtedly be regulated.

That sounds wonderful -- because we all know how much regulation fosters innovation! I'd rather never have that discussion. I guess I don't understand what you're advocating in general. Music has been an integral part of society since caveman days; just because record labels found a way to get fat by extorting consumers and artists alike doesn't mean people have some god-given right to be paid for their self-expression (but often times they deserve it.)

[cubedice]

Hmm, you definitely have a point. People have rarely felt musicians should be paid (a lot) for their self-expression; I can't really recall when it was a lucrative career. What I suppose I meant was that the best musicians have often (though not always) been poor business people.

You're also right that sometimes they deserve to be paid. It is my intuition that the free market works against supporting the largest number of musicians. It may work to reward the best, but to me, that doesn't foster innovation (since musicians rarely look at the payoff in terms of money--probably fame). Certain acts are always going to be very famous, but there probably is a lot of room for diversity.

The optimal strategy for creativity/diversity would be to provide a (minimal) amount of reimbursement for attempting to create music. This would not only bring music creation back to the masses (where it probably should be) but could also provide an incentive for creative people to put work out and also buy dinner.

[blueben]

This sounds an awful lot like welfare for people "attempting to create music". Are you sure that's what you mean to say?

[cubedice]

Not really. Although that's a funny thought.

I'd go for a system that enforced a payment based upon a baseline # of listens on pandora, last.fm or youtube.