Re: right vs privilege error again
"Most musicians get much more from the paid performances they do (even for tips on free gigs) than from album sales. "
As applied to the past, this statement would be pure, unalloyed bullshit. The mere fact that record companies (and note well that these were RECORD companies whose primary business was making RECORDS and not booking live gigs) would only, in exceptional circumstances, finance a tour of this or that band in order to support a record. TOURS support RECORDS.
Your original statement, however, applied to the present, simply recognizes that piracy has destroyed the market for music, and consequently the ability for musicians to earn more than they would get as tips at a "free gig". My *guess* is, that most people would consider "passing a tip jar at a free gig" to be "begging". You seem to think that this represents some sort of progress as compared to the days when it might have been possible to earn a decent living by being a musician.
"Playing gigs" is, as you obviously don't know, very often a money-losing activity for most musicians who try it.
"The bulk of artists do not depend on copyright for a living".... because at this point in time, with pretty nearly no copyright enforcement, there is no living to be had. These two facts are connected, whether you want to realize it or not.
And if you don't understand how copyright is the ONLY mechanism that enables or, better, could theoretically enable, an artist, musician, or author to earn a living, then you don't understand much. Or perhaps you would explain to me how an artist, musician, or author, could earn a living when their work is immediately put on the web without permission in order to serve a ad-bait, and so be enjoyed free of cost for the sake of running Google Adsense ads.
You don't find anything wrong with that? You don't think that maybe the people who create the works that people want to see, read, listen to, ought to get paid for it, and have the right to dispose of it as they see fit, as opposed to being expropriated by thieves and ultimately serving to enrich Brin, Page, Schmidt, and the venture capitalists who ultimately reap the profit.
But then as Brin, Page, and Schmidt are already each worth $15bn+, I can see why you would want any artistic endeavour to operate as a charitable enterprise, with Google and the rest of the tech oligarchs as the beneficiaries of that charity.
Have an armband.