>> And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.

Sure, you Just Want to listen to music, but that doesn't mean musicians/producers/record-companies should then just give it to you for free. This is what you're still missing.

I Want to have sex with hot women, but that doesn't mean they should then just automatically stop and spread their legs at me where ever I go.

> Musicians don't need producers--in fact, this has been a role only recently filled in the 20th century. They don't need them to perform, they don't need them to record, they don't need them to make money. In fact, you can very easily find examples of producers doing more hard than good...just ask any fan of Streetlight Manifesto.

Sure, traditional record companies are increasingly unnecessary, but people still need to somehow become aware of an artist's music - otherwise no one will buy it. In other words, there's still a need for "awareness middlemen" and/or advertising, even if home studios have made record companies unnecessary on the production side.

But see, when you declare that you just Want Stuff For Free, you're not making a distinction between those evil record companies and their poor abused slaves, the artists.

You can download the shit out of an independent artist's music, but he too wants you to pay for it. Gracing someone's music with the attention of your ears doesn't actually put food on his table.

There are songs available for purchase. If you want a particular song, you should pay for it, because the song has value to you. If you download it for free, you get something of value, but the music producer gets nothing. That's simply not a fair trade. To be more exact, it's not even a trade. It's you by-passing the trade.

As I said, if the producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then they'll stop producing music. See, that would actually be the point where they'll just throw in the towel. If everyone thought that they're somehow entitled to receiving music for free, like the guy I responded to, then the only music you could get would be the musical equivalent of open-source.

> It's the same reason I don't buy into these "starving artist" sob stories: no one can escape market forces.

Oh believe me, I'm all for market forces. I'm not saying musicians should be entitled to making a living through music either.

> The fact of the matter is, that business landscape is extremely competitive and typically requires a large initial investment. It's always been this way. The one force that seems to be an equalizer is technology in general getting cheaper and cheaper, NOT the protectionism known as copyright.

Note that you're actually talking about business there. So am I.

I don't even support IP enforcement or patents etc, I'm just saying that if no one takes music producers up on their offer of voluntary exchanges of music for money, then all those who are producing it to make money will simply stop.

I do realize that music is a passion for musicians, but record companies are in it for a profit. They're businesses, and they're what I was referring to.

You're free to seek out indie musicians on CDBaby or whatever and then download the shit out of their music, but even they'd at least prefer that you buy it. That's why their music can be found online.

I'm aware of that. But I don't think the guy I originally responded to thought even that far. That's why I responded. He's just completely oblivious to the fact that people putting music up for sale actually do expect others to pay for it.