OSNews

1. It is still hypocrisy when you want that everyone forgets your sins just because some time has passed. Just because it was "ok" (legally) 160 years ago doesn't make it morally correct.

2. This is fundamentally a problem of wealth distribution and added value. The artists certainly generate added value. But who gets to be wealthy?

The point is that this is an issue which doesn't really depend on a moment in history - how much money do artists make (or at least how well they live compared to the rest of the population during their lifetime). I'd say that the average artist has about the same financial situation as he did 200 years ago - of course related to his time.

I hope you do realize that most of the money in almost all the creative domains goes to the middle man - not to the artist directly. For example a while ago TLC (pop band) was hugely popular. And they got about 5 cents per dollar earned.

What we have now is pirates fighting against middle men, neither of which I like. But I'd much rather have the middle men under pressure, trying to actually generate some added value, than them being left alone.

And the difference between Dicken's time and now is that the middle men have grown much stronger, have allied and made huge companies which are able to defend their rights everywhere. I don't believe that many artists will starve, even if they never sell an album from now on. Anyone heard of live shows? Concerts, tours, TV shows, parties, etc, etc?

Edited 2009-04-17 18:50 UTC