This is not a legitimate counterargument. Of course if the economics are not working, we can just decide "oh well, I guess nobody should create music anymore." But obviously the goal should be how to structure the economy so we can enjoy music and musicians can live comfortably.
> But obviously the goal should be how to structure the economy so we can enjoy music and musicians can live comfortably.
No, thats ugly socialism. We dont want to structure laws and economy so a certain kind of jobs becomes profitable which otherwise wouldnt. If they are necessary and wanted, they will be supported by their customers, if they are not wanted, who cares then. Let the free market decide.
This is ridiculous hyperbole and takes my point too literally. Copyright law is there because we want creative work to be possible to sell on the free market. Patents are there because we want inventors to be able to have incentives to invent. As flawed as they are, they are not "socialism."
As a society we get to decide, as pg says, what property is. This is a roundabout way of saying we get to decide what endeavors can be profitable, by attributing property-dust to their creations and protecting them by force of law. I think most people would agree it's in everyone's interest if we can structure the economy and laws so people who create things such as music have the opportunity to make a profit.
