[The Old Hoosier]

the original intent of copyright laws was to allow a right to publish for a limited amount of time.

Yes, but think about it: the very minute my band publishes a song, I no longer can charge anyone for it, because it is already FREE on the internet. So who can make a living writing or playing music?

If the drug industry had this kind of paradigm, no one would ever get well.

[William McKinley]

It's not already free.

Those who bootleg can still be prosecuted.

[The Red Zone]

The industry is going to have to sue infringers for actual infringements. A few ugly examples will not stop the song stealing party altogether but it will dampen it. Even if it loses the Verizon case, the industry still would be able to have a judge issue a force-identification subpoena for downloaders or sharers from a sting operation. Isn't the Verizon case ultimately about the DMCA self serve subpoenas?

[dark_lord]

Yes, but think about it: the very minute my band publishes a song, I no longer can charge anyone for it, because it is already FREE on the internet. So who can make a living writing or playing music?

This is the same problem facing anyone who tries to produce software for money. I suggest some ways to make money for musicians in this situation:

(1) Give the music away on the Internet. Charge for giving concerts.
(2) Make the music available for free on your website. Charge for tee-shirts, coffee cups, and anything else you can "brand."
(3) Sell music to PC & video game makers as background and scene music.
(4) Provide music as scene music to "indy" film makers for "free" in exchange for a cut of the take. Which means a cut of the video tape sales and rental income.

[eno_]

Yes, but think about it: the very minute my band publishes a song, I no longer can charge anyone for it, because it is already FREE on the internet. So who can make a living writing or playing music?

If the drug industry had this kind of paradigm, no one would ever get well.

Empirically, it is easy to show the above is not true: There were drugs, and music, long before there were patents, the FDA, or the DMCA. Would you take a bet that both would continue to exist if the current intellectual property models stopped existing? How large a bet would you be willing to take, and would you give odds?

[Tauzero]

"So who can make a living writing or playing music?"

As always, those that can find a patron.

The nature of the patron may very well change.

[Almondjoy]

Concerts.. shows.. and other gigs is what will keep the business moving on. Plus you will always have radio. Advertisers might end up taking the brunt of this decision. I'm all for it though. You can't ban file swaping programs. It's great for all kinds of things including 200 meg picture files that you can't dump into a hotmail account.

[greccogirl]

But look what happened with Napster. The music industry's sales actually WENT UP due to Napster. It was quoted and shown in many places. I don't think this will have the effect you believe it will.

[Jeff Chandler]

>>If the drug industry had this kind of paradigm, no one would ever get well.<<

Funny you should mention drugs while discussing rock music.

[Shethink13]

Yes, but think about it: the very minute my band publishes a song, I no longer can charge anyone for it, because it is already FREE on the internet.

That's absurd. No one is preventing you from charging for your music. You have no constitutional right to a profit. If the price is right and the product is desirable, the free market will reign.

How many people do you know wouldn't rather just purchase a prerecorded videotape of a movie rather than record it off the TV? Market forces have brought the price to a level that makes this the more sensible choice. The same will happen with the music industry.

I sure do love capitalism.

So who can make a living writing or playing music?

Ever heard of a live concert?