You have a very cynical but typical outlook CDN. But you should not knock economists, especially you do not understand what they are talking about.

Do you know WHY there is such a thing as "Top 40?" No, it's not to do with corporate conspiracies. It's to do with economics.

To "like" a song, you have to hear it first. How do you hear it? Randomly go to the Internet and find "good" music, sifting through millions of pages? No. You turn on the radio, or MTV, or a movie, or some forum put together by some who is not you.

Once you "like" a song, you want to hear it again. This is called "option value." Fans pay money for recordings so they can hear songs they like as many times as they like, when they like. Otherwise we all would only listen to the radio, such as FM, or Internet radio.

Other than live performances, option value is the only way for recording artists to generate income. Piracy robs artists of this faint hope of a return.

Music consumers are "risk averse." They like to hear what others have already judged as good. This is why 90% of the income goes to 10% of the artists. It's a "winner take all" market. It's not about some corporate bogey man forcing music on us.

The 10% at the top generate cash that spills over into the development of the next star. Many emerging artists get a shot a glory this way. But that pie is shrinking, due to theft.

The result is fewer artists getting a shot, fewer having even that faint hope of being a professional. This leads to fewer kids in band class. Innovation and creativity go down the drain.

Open source software development is a totally different conversation for another post. But let me ask you this: is the creator of Linux rich or poor?

I will have to disagree with you on the above point of what is available on the radio…most radio stations will no play non-top 100 songs unless they are a specific genre radio show. They get their play lists from the media groups.

CBC is the exception, they showcase new talent all the time and direct listeners to those avenues.

With radio listeners way way down, and the younger audience getting music from the internet and from friends the whole issue is what is relevent…the play lists that are now digitally pieced together with the local adverts to hundreds of different radio stations or people finding better music from the internet…

It is luck that radio stations can't realistically judge their market share because if they found out then their advertisers would most likely be dropping them or at least lowering their contracts.

Radio still has a voice, but seriously do you believe what is played on the standard radio is the top 100 songs…

With regards to the 90/10 argument…that is funny that you used those figures because it was shown (I have to find the statistic) that only 1 in 10 artist that signs with a record label makes any money…the rest are held and can't release anything because the record label hold them in the wing….then lets them go.

I have a number of friends that are musicians and they all refused to sign on to the record deals because of the limiting of their work…they chose to continue to perform concerts and events and sell their CD's or provide free songs to their fans from their web sites…They are not hurting at all for money and they still enjoy working more then 2 hours a year for their pay….

Indie musicians "not hurting at all for money." As if! You will have to "show me the money" on that one.

You are not getting my point. If it's "better music" on "the internet," how did they find out about that music? Don't you realize that bands need to MARKET themselves to get an audience?

Some bands are good at marketing and get an audience. That does not make their music "better."

Some artists are amazing but could not market their way out of a paper bag, so they languish in their parent's basement, eventually joining the postal service.

well without you qualifying hurting for money…if a band has talent, marketing skills and drive, then they survive and prosper…the others should find other lines of work.

Finding music is a word of mouth or a social experience…or through good adverts…radio is no longer the best way to distribute advertisi8ng to the top 40 that someone choses to highlight.

Do you have hard metrics to back up you claim that radio has been eclipsed by a "social experience?" Do people stuck in traffic listen to the radio or get tips from their friends on what to download?

Artists, having no money available from labels hobbled by piracy, must engage in "do it yourself," guerrilla marketing. Hence Myspace and etc. But how much $$ is being made from all this?

For a reality check, I recommend people check out this website: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/

But the labels aren't "hobbled by piracy". If they're suffering at all, it's due to competition. There's a good article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/09/games-dvd-music-downloads-piracy that shows how decreased spending on music has been more than made up for by increased spending on games and DVDs.

I will check out the links. Meanwhile, am I the only person on this blog who thinks piracy is a problem? I now there is a movement out there that thinks Copyright should be abolished or at least watered down, but it is a misguided philosophy. IMHO.

Yes, the Internet has "changed everything." I started an "Internet company" myself that was hailed as revolutionary. But the technological change does not alter the underlying principal that artistic endeavor and innovation is fostered by the right of those who create such works to exclusive rights to make copies of the works.

Are people arguing here the idea or the application of it? Copyright is not going away. Let's agree on that at least.

It is becoming very clear that there are several camps on this board with vested interests. Pirates want it ALL for free and they really don't give a rat's ass how they get it, even if it means LOBBYING and DOMINATING a forum such as this. I've never read so many try so hard to redefine the meaning of the word -'theft'.

Alternatively, there are those who absolutely agree that Copyright is, at bare minimum, a necessity for 'working artists', regardless of discipline.

Then there are the super techs vs. the techie luddites. Plenty of problems there cuz they really do NOT speak the same language. It's like two different worlds colliding … Pirates vs Creators

Finally there are all those who are reading and NOT commenting on ANY OF IT cuz they cannot see their own 'interest' or problem being addressed, in specific or general terms.

It's a pity this board is so user-UNfriendly, cuz it's often the 'quiet reflective ones' who have the best perspective and the most wisdom to offer …

"redefine the meaning of theft" is amusing. dictionary.com defines it as "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny." - it's the people who want to cry "thief" when their property hasn't been taken from them who are trying to redefine its meaning. It's a great shame, because people end up playing with semantics rather than talking about the actual issues. Many people jump to the conclusion that because I say that distribution without the permission of the rightsholder is not theft, that I also believe that it's not wrong, which is not true.

"rape" is also not "theft", but that doesn't make it acceptable. Call "rape" "theft" and you'll have people disagree with you. Characterizing those people as believing that rape is ok or as rapists will, of course, then generate an argument, but it's a distraction from any discussion about rape itself.

So let's talk about copyright infringement and discuss whether it needs to be broadened or narrowed (or both), but let's avoid calling it something else in an effort to bias the discussion.

huh?
I'm having a little trouble following the logic here:

1. You say "dictionary.com defines [theft] as "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another"

you then say -

2. "that distribution without the permission of the rightsholder is not theft, that I also believe that it's not wrong, which is not true." - - huh?

In your opinion, is taking something from someone WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION theft, or not? Yes, or No?

Yes, of course taking something from somebody without their permission is theft. Distributing something without the permission of the rightsholder doesn't "take something from somebody". What "personal goods or property" does the rigthsholder no longer have after somebody has distributed something without their permission ?

And, just to be completely clear, just because it isn't theft, that doesn't mean that it's acceptable. I don't believe that it is acceptable, and I'm not defending it. Lots of things are illegal and unacceptable but aren't "theft".

dbrett - "…labels hobbled by piracy…"

There are so many false assumptions at play where Canada is being labelled a pirate society. At least take a few moments to view the video posted by our fellow Canadian, Michael Geist, called "Putting Canadian "Piracy" in Perspective" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TloG6qL3gg.

Radio is still the best, but it is diminishing. I would guess in a generation, it will be basically irrelevant. The impact of social networking sites and internet radio is growing in importance.

References:
http://bit.ly/n5BMx
http://bit.ly/c3T3O
http://bit.ly/hWwkL

I should point out…Bill Gates was a genius but without Paul Allen we would not have the inovations for the last 20 years.

If people can't tell their weaknesses and hire someone to help then they are not going to be shown to the public…

Great talent does not equal audience.

Sorry I ignored the first 3/4 of your post because it sounded like a industry insider that wanted to confuse the waters but I should respond…

"To "like" a song, you have to hear it first. How do you hear it? Randomly go to the Internet and find "good" music, sifting through millions of pages? No. You turn on the radio, or MTV, or a movie, or some forum put together by some who is not you."

Actually now because of the limit on radio stations to hear good songs, you find them on the internet…through the social sites or whatever. Radio now is more about stuff you listen to in the background at work then what you choose to listen too…when you look at the figures of even in 2008 only 6.8 million people worldwide bought coldplay which was the top selling album…

if that was projected to just the US, that would be just under 7% of the average family consumption…if you looked at the complete world it would be <1%….

When you see other artist world wide generating 10's of millions of hits on Youtube or download of media…I think the statistics are a little iffy for radio top 40's…..

Sorry, just like TV, the good shows and music don't survive because of alternate distribution methods that are not tracked by the Neilson ratings or other such service…

Top 40 music is a result of the corporate broadcast medium, not some intrinsic human nature. To claim that people would have to sift through the Internet to find good music is a laughable statement in the age of Google, Pandora, Netflix, and all the other increasingly powerful search and recommendation services. All of these services will help people find "what others have already judged as good" in a decentralized and far more accurate manner - avoiding payola and other scams that have plagued radio and other broadcast mediums.

Open source software works the same way, anything freely available will quickly be integrated into tools that help you find "the best" stuff, as with publicly available webpages.

And yes, Linus, the closest thing that you would understand as the "creator" of Linux is very rich. Not only does he not have to worry about material comforts (because he is well paid for working on Linux), he gets to work on what he loves and he doesn't have to pay any of the 1000s of other people that help him improve his software. Not to mention the value he has created for himself in reputation and the value he has contributed to Linux, which he and anyone else can use freely.

More importantly, if you are measuring the effectiveness of copyright by how rich it makes individuals or corporations and not by how much added value it brings to society as a whole, then we have a fundamental disagreement. Artists only need to make enough as artists to get them to make art rather than do the second best thing they could do. I know my number is much less than what you'd consider rich.

"To "like" a song, you have to hear it first. How do you hear it? Randomly go to the Internet and find "good" music, sifting through millions of pages? No. You turn on the radio, or MTV, or a movie, or some forum put together by some who is not you."

Wrong. I do find my music on the internet. I can't stand the radio OR MTV.

"Once you "like" a song, you want to hear it again. This is called "option value." Fans pay money for recordings so they can hear songs they like as many times as they like, when they like. Otherwise we all would only listen to the radio, such as FM, or Internet radio."

Or I can download the album, let my friends hear it, and then the whole lot of us will see the artist live when they are in the area next at the price of $20 a ticket. Hell, I'll even buy the CD to support there tour. I don't care that I have it already, I like the artwork that accompanies the disc.

"Music consumers are "risk averse." They like to hear what others have already judged as good. This is why 90% of the income goes to 10% of the artists. It's a "winner take all" market. It's not about some corporate bogey man forcing music on us."

I will judge what is good with my own ears, thanks. The top 10% of 'artists' don't get my money OR my attention. It's hardly music, anyway. If I wanted T&A I'd go to the strip club. I'm looking for good music.

"Open source software development is a totally different conversation for another post. But let me ask you this: is the creator of Linux rich or poor? "

Linus is certainly not hurting for cash. And he's pretty happy with his job. What percentage of people working in the copyright paid model can say the same?

In short, I think you haven't even tried to look into the depth of artists that do what they do simply because they care. You are talking about pop-culture 'artists' that sell themselves out for the biggest buck, and I can't see a legitimate reason to protect them. I am talking about people who do what they do because they love it. If they are good enough to be recognized, they will succeed regardless of copyright law. Raw talent does not go ignored.

Yes. But there were very few of them, and they were beholden to a patron to support them. I personally do not want to move back to a time where only the very wealthy can afford new content.

People also had much less free time and money back then, so nobody could really be an "amateur creator".
Just as economics tells us that you can't charge for copies of works, it also tells us that people will fulfill the demand for creative works that clearly exists (indeed there are already many examples of creators who encourage people to make copies of their work because that's not how they make money). They just won't be charging for copies. So you don't need to worry about "a time when only the very wealthy can afford new content".

Well, with Technical Protection Measures (DRM) we may just be going back to that period, where only the rich can support new content.

How can a library offer enrichment if all media is locked down? What happens when copyright expires, do we have the right to break the locks then?