If it's a choice between destroying the Internet or destroying the music industry, it is in everybody's interest except the music industry's to destroy the music industry. (And by "music industry", I'm even excluding listeners and to a lesser extent, artists.)

Now, I don't think that's actually the choice we face. But if the music industry wants to turn it into that choice, then the choice is rather clear. That is, even if I take your statement at face value, the clear interest of society would still lie with "keep the Internet and let the musicians hang".

Again, I don't think that's the actual choice we face. But even your exaggeration is not sufficient to win the argument.

No matter what happens, people will continue making music because a whole lot of people like making music. What value do the record companies add to that, which we can't get by other, less harmful means?

> What value do the record companies add to that, which we can't get by other, less harmful means?

If you really want to know, look at my posts. I've answered this very question a number of times. Frankly, the fact that you ask it shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Musicians don't deign to understand what hackers and software developers do. Why, conversely, do hackers think they understand what musicians and record companies do?

Yes, most musicians like to making music. And they get the girls.

yes, when artists got loans to make their records, earned under $1 for a CD that sold for more than $20, and were still expected to repay the loans?

oh wait, thats still how it goes, except the artist cut is lower because CDs sell for less.

No excuse for this, really. Led Zeppelin showed everyone how to do it in 1969. Record your own first record (very much easier to do now), own your masters, and have a good, tough business guy who is unquestionably on your side (Peter Grant).

I find it somehow strange that they structure this as a loan and not as a sale of equity.

Way to miss the point of the article.