But once that happens, and it will, the arguments surrounding piracy will be stripped entirely of all "social justice" fig leaves. I'll wait to see if "ripping off record companies that only screw artists" becomes "ripping off stupid rock stars who shouldn't be that rich anyway."
Knowing what moral contortions folks assume to get free stuff (how many Liberals are there in the world?), I've got my suspicions.
Knowing what moral contortions folks assume to get free stuff (how many Liberals are there in the world?), I've got my suspicions.
You're assuming that artists would employ the same bone-headed schemes that have perpetuated the RIAA in selling their music.
Don't forget that Napster rose up and became what it was because of a void in the market. We can argue all day just what that void was, but the truth is that the RIAA thrives in a vacuum, and like the old saw goes, 'nature abhors a vacuum'.
I have a different view than many.
I believe that artists would be encouraged to fix a price that the market will bear, and that the free market will support those who the market chooses. As it stands, consumers are forced to pay a tax to the labels to get the music they want. Liberal no-talent parasites like Hilary Rosen can't see that punitive taxation creates and feeds a black market (if you think the WOD is bad, wait til the black market in cigarettes gets going in this country).
Clearly the market values the music at a lower price than the labels do. In fact, I would argue that the labels could earn ten times the money they do if they cut their prices by 70%, but try telling that to a no-talent label exec who drives a Mercedes and has a Clintonian taste for nose candy.
The reason Napster is a success is that consumers are forced to buy 13 crap songs on a CD to get the two they really want.
In a better model, consumers could pay $1.00 per song; artists wouldn't have to release crap, and the price structure would be comparable to the cost of a retail CD if purchasing all the songs, or the cost of a bulk CD if only buying one or two.
Further, in the model I've described, the consumer knows his $15 is rewarding the artist, not the cocaine-addled hangers-on at the labels.