Ideas and imagination are not property of the thinker or the the dreamer simply because they thought of something first. By that standard everything that is currently "owned" by persons or businesses have already been claimed before their time in the past by their predecessors.
Music is a freedom of expression not a product.
Many proponents of copyright say, "Why not have free cars?" That is an apples and artichokes comparison, since we pay for food, cars, etc., because they are goods. Music is culture. From a cultural point of view, music belongs to the people. We like to listen to, sing, and re-arrange music. When the radio plays a good tune, you say "They're playing my song." We are naturally inclined to form associations with music, and copyright laws take that away.
Copyrights live on for decades after the composers have died. This has led to countless arguments, lawsuits, and greed over a song. The most famous example is the Happy Birthday song, which is owned by Warner. Warner has been making thousands off of this song, and anyone who sings it (even a waiter) must pay royalties.
People have been sued for thousands of dollars for downloading songs off the internet "illegally". The other option, iTunes, is much cheaper (cinsidering the lawsuit) but still costs a lot (It costs 1,000 dollars to fill an iPod!).
Numerous lawsuits have been made over "music plagiarism". If your song even uses the same drumbeat as someone elses, they can take it off the air and charge you, all so artists can become even richer.
Music started when people started (and even earlier if you count birdsongs), but paid music only goes back to the 1600s, when John Banister put on a concert in England. A relatively recent concept, started by one guy. He has paved the way for hundreds of greedy people who came after him, who make more than the average Joe, for doing relatively nothing.
I guess I will put a paper bag over my face and charge people to look at me.
Imagine if the classical theory of gravity were copyrighted and everytime you use it to solve a physics problem or do engineering you have to pay Newton because he worked so much to develop that theory, Just like musicians work to create their music. It would make no sense at all.
F f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
I think that every single thought that a person has has been taken from the outside world, influenced by the individuals beliefs (which is based in perception) and desires, which makes sense as the only things that we ever experience are things external to our thoughts and the thoughts themselves, which must be inspired from somewhere, new thoughts are unable to be self creating as the thoughts have no object to be observing or measuring that is new to the perceiver, although repetitive thoughts can be created with a base in thoughts, it is possible to glean new information from old thoughts, say one day you have an epiphany when you pull apart the information (information in the format of thoughts) already in your mind and gain a new perspective on that information, this is not thoughts creating new thoughts, rather a perspective shift that allows old information to be seen differently and therefore treated and thought about differently. It is impossible for a person to create anything, all we can ever do is take information that we already have and change it, which discovers new information we previously did not have, when this idea is applied to anything that has been "created" by a person it is unwise to claim that the creation is their intellectual property as the information it was made from existed before the "creator"perceived it. If you want to understand reality, observe reality with a completely open mind, let go of preconceived ideas and you may discover something "new".
I hope you have a nice day and smile at a stranger :)
Contrary to some peoples opinion, creating a piece of music is not easy. It takes a lot of hard work. Look at the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. It took 15 years from the earliest work to it's final production. Sure, they also worked on other songs at the time but to create something from it's rawest forms to a compilation of beautiful art is a long argues process that takes a huge amount of talent and skill. Of course they deserve to be paid for people to own a copy.
There is one big exception to this though. Seeing that rap is technically not music because there is no singing nor are there any instrument being played by the performers, the so called artists do not need any real musical skill. Rap is basically a poem with a beat. Seeing that the beat is from a drum machine and/or chopped up pieces of other real artists work it is more like a updated version of beatnik poetry from the 50's and 60's where they would speak poetry to the rhythm of a bongo or some other drum. Seeing that the person playing the bongo would need at least some skill in playing an instrument, it means that beatnik poetry was closer to being actual music than rap.
Creating amazing songs take time. Not everyone has the talent to do it, and those that do have to give up nearly all their time, practicing, composing, recording etc. All these musicians dream of being able to create music full-time, same as anyone with a passion. Unfortunately most musicians have to generate a income, same as everyone else. With music copyrights abolished nearly all their income disappears. Already smaller bands are unable to sustain their income, having to revert to other jobs to cover the bills, or support their families. All this is because people who like the music but are reluctant to support the band, preferring to get it for free, and then getting confused when the band splits. The abolition of copyright laws, instead of spreading music more, will restrict the creation of music to those who can already afford it.