= new reply since forum marked as read
Two or three centuries ago, music was every bit as innovative as it is now with regard to the exploration of the endless variety of tunes that are possible. At that time, however, there were no laws in existence regarding copyright; music was part of culture, and culture cannot be proprietary (except in very sick societies, in my opinion). When a musician heard a tune that he liked, he played it, and so on, and so on, until the authorship of the music was lost and the song had entered the broader culture. Most of these songs were also adapted and altered, or even appropriated for other ends, like politics (cf. "The World Turned Upside-Down" and "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
.
Copyright stifles this free flow and exchange of musical ideas for the sake of profit. If I want to write new lyrics to the tune of the Rolling Stones' "Angie," why should I have to pay? Everyone is familiar with that song, because it has long since become a fixture in the broader culture. Even if I'm a 14 year old kid who is just becoming musically aware and just want to download "Angie" so I can listen to it when I like, how does it injure the billionaire Rolling Stones?
The one limiting rule I have adopted for myself is this: if a song has become popular enough to have had wide airplay on radio, then I'm going to download it if I like. However, local and indy music that I like that subsists on direct CD sales and live venue play, I will pay for (and chip in an extra buck or two besides). For those who are on the road, we must have a code that we can live by.
Gotta support underground talent if you don't want it all to sound like American Idol.
