When I get into a discussion about reducing or removing copyright on things like music, the only point that people have that I have the hardest time convincing them is wrong is the question: "Why shouldn't these musicians make money on their music?" How would you (mike or anyone really) approach this point to allow me to try and convince more people that more copyright (at least with music) is not good.
The difference is when your actually creating the work. When writing something, exactly what you say isn't always as important is what the message you are trying to convey.
But when programming, you run into something you need your program to do, maybe it is sort 2 lists of words into one that is alphabetized. To do this part of your program you could either create the code from scratch or just search google and probably find either exactly what you need or something every close.
I feel like that is a major difference between the two. One can create an amazing program with close they only copied from the internet and a few minor fixes. But for a book or a paper to be written you need more then just sentences copied.
I'm not that experienced in the industry, but what I have learned is that almost every bit of code ever to be written has most likely already been written in some very similar form. The only unique part of it is combining different pieces into something that is mostly unique. I don't understand how anyone can claim copyright on code when the code used probably contained many pieces of code that the programmers got from the internet or have saved from old projects (like really useful functions) that may again also be copyrighted.
Is there anyone who can explain this to me? Like why it makes any sense at all to be able to copyright code?
When I graduated from high school (only like 7 months ago) just about everyone said the graduation ceremony was for the families of those graduating. Many of us were part of it just to make our families happy. The school doesn't only pay for the people to come in and talk for the students, it is for the whole atmosphere of the ceremony.
I just found out that the first iPod was released in October 2001, with how big that has grown that might be why recorded would hit a peak in 2002 before everyone who had an iPod was file sharing so regularly.
"Are more concert tickets being sold (more attendance) or is it just that ticket prices have been jacked up?"
Either way they are making more money. If prices went up but people still pay means that the music has gotten better.
"Are artist revenues up, or are they failing to remove expenses off the other side, which were formally paid by others (not artists, not their revenues)? Essentially, where are artist NET revenues?"
That is what is shown in the second graph. The amount of money to artists has gone from just 880 to almost 1100 millions of SEK.
"It also appears that, just like the UK numbers, the actual live and record is flat or down over the period. Is this the case? Why would there be no increase even considering things like inflation and such?"
I think you got confused with the colors like I did. Live is blue in the top graph, but green in the second. It looks like live to artists is WAY up. While recorded to artists is down and SAMI to artists is up a bit.
"It would appear that the music industry, for all the 'innovation' out there, is essentially flat (and down from a peak in 2002)."
That might be because in 2002 there was a huge spike in recorded, but the other two continued to grow steadily. It may be because of a balance has not been met. Recorded will probably decline still while the other two continue to grow. Over time it will be a higher overall income, but for now it is more stagnant because of change.
So basically it just stopped those who didn't have the skills to make it work. Those same people probably don't realize there are alternatives to windows that are free and easy to get to work. Their ignorance isn't proof that DRM stopped piracy.
So if I make an exact copy of your car. Down to every detail (scratch, paint fading, bobble head on the dash board) and drive away in that copy. Did I steal your car? NO. I copied it. You still have your car and so do I. You are able to use your car all you want without me stopping you in any way. That is why infringement is not stealing. Stealing implies you can't use your idea anymore.
Also to point the problem with saying that mass copying will hurt you. If your comedy act is truly amazing, people will hear you, and want to see you live. Comedy is different recorded, you don't get the expressions, the visual enjoyment you get from a live performance. I attend live comedy all the time, and yet I widely share many comedy acts with anyone who wants to listen. If the comedy act is good recorded, most want to see it live. That is how you can make as a comedian.
Actually, the world will still have comedy without professional comedians. I hang out with friends and I laugh and have a good time. Some of my friends are just comedians, they make people laugh. They just don't get paid for it. How can you possibly believe we need professional stand-up comedians to make people laugh. We have many other forms of entertainment that make people laugh. The idea that professional comedy has always been around and needs to stay around doesn't work due to the fact that up until the last 100 years, entertainment didn't include movies, tv, or internet. You-tube has tons of comedians who do it because they enjoy it.
What about web comics for professional artists. For example the two guys who own and run penny arcade. It is a hilarious comic strip that has a huge following. They now have their own video game expo, that is the largest of its kind. The two of them can have just about anything they want. They raise something like 2 million a year for charity. They found a way to make everyone who reads their comics pay them, why can't you or a professional comedian do the same?
In all, the idea that people 'should' pay you is not a way to become a successful artist, comedian, musician, whatever. The way to do that is to make people WANT to pay you.
4 to 5 minutes of a movie is a very small portion. The movie runs for 2 hours 2 minutes. That is 182 minutes. 5/182 is less then .028. That is less then 2.8% of the movie. Practically nothing, yet she has jail time and felony charges.
Where are the companies that have a lot to lose with large amounts of people being removed form the internet.
Google makes much of it's money through advertising, if the population of the internet starts to shrink due to people being kicked off what happens to them.
ISPs make money by subscriptions to internet service. If one gets kicked off the internet that is another person not paying for internet.
Blizzard has 11 million people paying 15$ a month for a game. If all of those who are accused of file sharing get kicked off, I wonder how many of those users would cancel their accounts because they can't connect any more.
Amazon and iTunes make money by selling digital goods. If those who pirate also pay the most for goods, then what will happen to those revenue streams.
In all I just don't understand how companies like these would sit by and watch the entertainment industry do what ever it can to destroy the internet.