I think there's too many different competing ideas and media messages being presented on the issue.
so the right of an artist to require payment isn't thought as being equivalent to an artist asking for no payment.
the only common denominator message people can figure out from the whole
mess of competing messages is, it's (only) ok if something is free.
the reason why only this message is the onlyone that seems to make sense is because, it fullfills these kinds of criteria.
1: everyone gets everything equally for free. so everything is equal and fair.
caveat of this position - it fails to address any real issue of inequality.
it helps people feel they are equal when in fact they just potentially gave away
their chance to make a future for themselves as an artist.
while at the same time giving away every other artists chances too.
and it's not as if you aren't able to give your music away for free in any case.
2: the greed avarice and controlling power structures of large corporations are
weakened by having their content made available for no cost.
caveat of this position - not really, because they also own large advertising
agencies who profit handsomely from the visual adverts which accompany
those free downloads. and no !! you can't ignore them. they already did their job.
add to this that these same corps will just have far stronger arguments,
to impliment far stranger and more draconian anti competative
technology while at the same time eventually succeeding in fact, in ending net neutrality.
also add their ability to invest in the large telecommunications sector and use
free Music and software as the driving engine to force take up of the medium,
while at the same time using the other hand to ask for net neutrality to be
ended and for piracy to be cracked down on. then it's not too hard to see what a
brilliant two pronged strategy you have been duped into unwhittingly take a role in helping institute.
your own demise hook line and sinker. genius!!
3: Privacy and freedom of speech need to be maintained.
sure but that's got nothing to do with your choice as to whether you sell your
Music or not.
when people look at this 6 strikes rule, it's really an odd state of affairs that
the last thing people seem to think they should worry about is if the artist gets
paid or not.
if you think to make artists or content creatives, lose one particular freedom
in order to maintain all our other freedoms is a good argument, I would have to contend that your
argument might actually be nutts. I can't even see why it's even considered a valid argument.
a Musician basically makes things to trade and the trading of those things is
what allows that musican to survive. and as it happens, if (anything) is ever
designated a natural human right it will always contain a component of what
it takes in a state of nature to, survive.
that's why the right to travel is a common law right. because if you couldn't
travel the land you wouldn't be able to survive.