Eventually we shall have higher bandwidth, more storage space and less lossy encryption. What then will seperate an original from a copy, nothing.
Except soul, man. ;) People who actually care about the art and the artist _will_ pay money for CDs and "genuine" recordings. People who hear something on the radio, think "ooh, that's kinda nifty", slurp it off Napster, and stick it on their playlist, won't. The death of copyright will mean the death of the one-hit wonder and the death of pop music as we know it, not the death of music or art.
So what are you suggesting, that artists sell Master Tapes from recording sessions for million$ while perfect digital copies are given away for free?
Someone would buy them... In a world where we have so many "limited edition collector's items", I just know that someone, somewhere, would indeed shell out the big bucks for something like this. It's all about spending money to gain status.
1.)Mozart died poor even though his music is probably more famous and popular than Bach's.
He didn't die poor, nor was he buried in a pauper's grave. There's actually a link in a k5 story about a week ago (that I haven't been able to find) that explains what was up. But basically, he was rich by any standard, made plenty of money, and had an upper-class life-style. He simply had no notion of "saving for a rainy day" (nor did many people back then). And as per custom, he was buried in a mass grave because he wasn't part of the nobility, just a commoner (and would have remained so no matter how much money he had).
1.) Concerts: These need sponsorship, i.e. big money to be of any considerable size. If artists stop making money on copyrighted works, all that will happen is that artists will now be at the mercy of concert promoters until we have a mirror of the current situation.
It'll only be a mirror of the current situation if all the big stadiums are owned be ~4 companys that collaborate to fix prices. I don't think this is going to be very likely...
Also where does that leave music that doesn't translate well to concerts E.g. Techno, hip hop, etc... Don't those artists deserve to eat?
Well, the current system screws over people who make art by combining and recombining the works of others. There's always someone who'll be disadvantaged by a system - that's an unfortunate fact of life. And not everyone has to play concerts - there are other ways out there to make money.
if a few million people are listening to music created by an artist the least that can happen is that the artist be financially rewarded for this...
Yes, but not at the expense of others. I find it ridiculous that Barbie is a cultural icon that has a life of its own quite apart from Mattel, and yet I'm not allowed to use the term or name without permission from them. Music is part of our culture too - I can do what I like with traditional folk songs, why not with modern songs too? (Personally, I lean more toward a system where there isn't a restriction on copying, just a restriction on making money off of it, but that's just me...)
2.) Merchandise: Interesting, so now instead of just making music artists have to worry about being product manufacturers and marketers as well. Won't this lead to a cheapening of the art form where artists will sell out more and more to make a buck?
Regarding marketing and merchandising, they already have to worry about this stuff. (Unless they give someone a cut to worry about it for them.) If you mean corporate sponsorships and advertising contracts influencing artistic decisions, well, that's a different problem. And if we want capitalism, then I'm afraid that's the price we have to pay. I don't like it either, but I think that the current system is overkill, and that the good stuff won't be affected at all.
[ Parent ]