You are correct that we’ve reached a point where we just have to agree to disagree. Here’s my problem with your argumentation however – you assume that an artist who’s amassed a loyal gathering of fans will not be recompensated. I claim differently.

The main issue is whether s/he will be able to be compensated for the actual work of creating art. And there i think we both agree – s/he very rarely will be. Instead the market model must be that the artist uses what they have created to market the nbrand they’ve created – their name. And in that, make money. Whether this will be by modern day busking (paypal/flattr buttons), by advertising on their webpage, or by selling spinoff merchandizing.

The idea that “information will be free” is neither “hip” nor some other type of fuzzy dream idea – it’s the inescapable fact that with any information, publication means everyone already has the “product” you’re insisting should have a further price. And then you want to rely on real human altruism in order for everyone to pay for the product they’ve already received. The first time your song goes over the radio, that cat is out of the bag along with all real sense of control you could ever expect to have.

In an alternate world where a sufficient ratio of people actually support that model, Lenins hypothesis of communism and Nietzsche’s “Stateless soeciety” would be perfectly viable. We do not live in that kind of society and never will until humanity stops being recognizably human.

Those are the facts. Now, even in today’s world, internet and all, artists and creators who embrace these facts do, despite many of your protestations, manage to make a living, given the ability to amass loyal followers. Google’s business model is and has always been to first identify something people want, then provide it for free, and long after that, attempt to find a financial use for it. And Lo, they no longer work out of a garage or a university back room.

Can everyone do this? sadly, no. A very few people, as you’ve stated, will be able to bring their creations to the table and earn wealth from them. Even da Vinci had to make commissions to support himself.

Your statements regarding copyright in the last three centuries begs some criticism – Germany did, during its most productive periods, not have copyright in anything approaching the modern variants, whereas France produced very little during it’s most draconian IP eras. Most modern nations swung themselves into full industrialization by blatantly ignoring any and all patent laws applying. The US couldn’t even create an air fleet during the world wars until they nationalized every last one of the various air patents. The list goes on. Copyright, as interpreted in modern times, is a severe drain on the creative efforts of everyone – NOT an incentive to create.

Which today is also the main reason only industries who are already enormous are able to create, for instance, a new brand of mobile phone or a computer processor. Without the block of patents, both Intel and AMD would by now have the ability to create processor architecture more than twice as efficient as what they are now creating by using bigger-hammer retrograde workarounds in order to compensate for technology the competition won’t license.

Even so, the advent of true practical mass communication has nailed the coffin shut on IP in general. That was a hypothesis which, like feudalism, was only practically possible during an era where certain aspects of infrastructure were sadly lacking.

Those are more or less the facts. Something you apparently agree with by and large, judging from your comments.

But where we differ to a great degree is where you decide to sit in the dark, cursing, instead of trying to find a match. My view is simple enough – changing a business model or inventing a new one is a lot easier than changing human nature. Especially when the old business model you champion never actually worked and had to rely on spurious, illogical and intrusive laws to even function on sufficient scale. And which is unstable enough it suffices if 1% of all people everywhere don’t respect it for it to fall apart completely.

That is where you’re looking for answers in the wrong place – much like the drunk man who looks under a street lantern for the keys he knows he dropped on the other side of the street simply because it’s too dark to see there.

Your suppositions that art will bottom out in quality? False. I maintain there will always be geniuses like da Vinci and Mozart. If they can be heard or seen they will make profit. Unlike now however, merely being “average” won’t cut it so what will vanish from the market will be one-hit wonders and six-week launches.

Even so, your choice is simple – human nature is human nature. “Deal with it” may sound callous, but really – the only viable approach is to build a model which works. IP as interpreted today does not work. As simple as that. No matter how much money “might” be made by such a model it’s as irrelevant as the idea that everyone could be rich if only everyone owned a printing press.

I get the shipping part, since the Internet allows digital distribution, but…
As for the rest…are you seriously saying that art works no longer need to be promoted, or produced?
You are right. I do feel crushed by your logic.
Yours is clearly the argument of someone who lives in a higher plane of existence.

& please, do not lecture me on what is stealing and what is not stealing:
Nothing is simple. & in a world where stupidity reigns like a tyrant, simplistic rules are created to serve in the place of common sense. However, those of us with enough intelligence to understand the system, think outside of it’s simplistic boundaries. Specifically, I am saying I will not be forced to pay a dollar for a single song that doesn’t need to be promoted, shipped, or produced. Especially when most artists will only see a tiny fraction of this money. Do not lecture me with rules that attempt to be all encompassing; I will crush you with logic until you blaspheme with stupidity.