I can see it both ways on music, which is hypocritical of me, I admit. I've worked in book publishing all my life and know how important those copyright safeguards are to authors, who work for at least a year and often much longer just to finish one book. They rely on royalties to compensate them for their time, which may take more years. Few writers write bestselling books that bring in top dollar.
In the music business, one might argue that the "stars" already make enough money (how much is enough?), but what about all the less famous artists? For instance, what about an opera singer who's devoted years of his life and every cent he could put together for lessons to perfect his highly trained voice? He may not be Pavarotti, nor make big bucks, but should he have to drive a cab to feed his children while people freely download his one CD? If the recording company doesn't make money on his first CD, you can be sure there won't be a second.
Not hypocritical, just thoughtful.
I am one of those authors you mentioned. Whenever this topic has come up before, I have asked how my rights will be protected if unlimited downloading is allowed. Why would anyone pay for a book if he can get it free? I have yet to hear a good answer from the "Information wants to be free" folks.
The problem is not with the concept that musicians and recording companies deserve to be paid. The question is how.
I'm convinced that some new method of distribution will be invented. At the moment I suspect that record companies or distributers will eventually sell licenses directly to internet providers and allow unlimited "free" downloads of compressed music files to the customers of licensed internet providers. Royalties will be distributed based on the number of downloads.
It will also be necessary to produce enhanced products that have file sizes too large for internet downloads. People with good sound or multimedia systems will have to pay for hard copies, which will be encrypted.
Pay for performance is the answer. That is why "less famous" performers are all for the P2P but "more famous" tend to be against it.
Pavaroti earns income every time he performs in a concert. That is as it should be. I am a musician myself and one of the first things I learned is that a record contract with a big label is not the kind of future to which a musician should aspire.
Record contracts with large labels are almost identical to another icon of our culture: The lottery ticket.
Working musicians by the thousands have discovered a very nicely paying alternative to the big label lottery.
Ok, but why should these people get to protect their work longer than someone who get a patent on some widget that they worked on for years. I will cut the entertainment industry some slack when copyrights and patents have the same shelf life.
I know that I've been buying books by authors that I'd never have checked out if I'd had to gamble on buying a book by an author I didn't know.
Isn't it amazing that when you don't treat your customers like potential thieves, they come back in droves?
Are they opposed to circulation of their books in public libraries?