Radiohead...

[Nokatus]

I see your point (now), from the economics perspective. I studied and practice law so it's natural for me to view things from the "moral" or "fairness" standards as opposed to the murky, amoral realm of economics (what is simply is).

I feel that the "moral" and "fairness" standards pretty much point to the direction Darwinist is getting at. It's certainly more fair for artists/producers to get to distribute their music directly, as a public good, open to voluntary donation - if and when there are realistic technical means of doing so. We are getting there, and some would say we are there now.

The middle men have effectively been making money by providing access to material goods (the whole distribution/publicity network they operate) and selling the music they agree to distribute. In contrast, music makers distributing their works freely to the public and letting it be know they appreciate a donation in case you think their musical efforts are worth supporting - I think that's much more positive in terms of "moral" and "fairness".

[kramerica]

I see your point (now), from the economics perspective. I studied and practice law so it's natural for me to view things from the "moral" or "fairness" standards as opposed to the murky, amoral realm of economics (what is simply is).

I feel that the "moral" and "fairness" standards pretty much point to the direction Darwinist is getting at. It's certainly more fair for artists/producers to get to distribute their music directly, as a public good, open to voluntary donation - if and when there are realistic technical means of doing so. We are getting there, and some would say we are there now.

The middle men have effectively been making money by providing access to material goods (the whole distribution/publicity network they operate) and selling the music they agree to distribute. In contrast, music makers distributing their works freely to the public and letting it be know they appreciate a donation in case you think their musical efforts are worth supporting - I think that's much more positive in terms of "moral" and "fairness".

What you're saying above is fair/moral/legal but you're talking about "selling" goods directly from producer to consumer. I believe Darwinist was talking about the consumer simply "taking" goods from the producer (though I doubt he was addressing the morality/fairness of such action; rather, he was just objectively observing what's happening right now). Such taking is against national and international copyright laws and those laws exist to protects artists' rights (i.e. the law reflects what is 'most fair' to the artist and consumer alike).

Law is about fairness.

Economics is about what is and what is not. Fairness isn't something that economists consider (most would laugh at terms like "fair" wages or "fair" trade as it has nothing to do with whether those wages or trade works or not).

I just jumbled what perspective he was coming from in my original reply.