Sharing Culture

I have been reading up on the subject lately and have formed some opinions of my own. First let us take trip back in the way back machine Dr. Peabody (anybody that gets that reference deserves a cookie). Let's take a look at how performers and musicians made a living prior to the ability to record a performance. Back then a musician made his/her money off performances. If they were good they would have a string of performances across varied locations. Often such performers would be given room and board and a small payment. They were taken care of for providing a cultural experience. Performers were taken care of based on their abilities as a performer and every performance mattered, unless they were in some back woods small dink town then they would receive what the town could afford to give. It may not have been much but the performer was provided for and people got to have their share of the latest cultural trend. If a song or style of song was popular others would make an effort to provide similar performances in order to provide a link to the newest evolution of culture. It was important to share these cultural changes and performers appreciated what ever they got. They did not have to do any real work. They played their music and they created more and the people took care of them providing food and shelter. Everyone was happy.

Let's jump a head. The ability to record sound comes along. The musicians were creative types that did not care about technology, only about the ability to perform and they saw a way to have those performances shared amongst the masses with out having to constantly travel. However people still wanted the live performance because no matter how well the recorded version was made it would never match up against the live performance. Now people would pay money to see performers and those who had the technology got paid for providing copies of a performance. The performers did not see much of the revenue generated by the selling of copies of a singular performance. We have a copy of a cultural piece that is being sold to the masses. For those that could not afford to buy a recorded copy of a singular performance could hear that recording via radio for free. Culture continues to be shared. It has not been until recent years that performers started to see a real cut of the profits for the selling of a copy of a singular performance. The recording industry has always been the ones to profit. Those with no artistic talent make millions upon millions of dollars off the copies and the musicians make millions upon millions off taking their live performance across the world.

Now if I understand this correctly it is illegal to make a copy of a recorded performance and share it with a friend. Remember bootleg tapes (probably the first time you heard Metallica before they got famous was off a bootleg tape). People would here some thing and make a copy of it to share with a friend. The friend got interested and thus became more likely to go to a live performance thus increasing the revenue for the artist. But what about the money for Copying company (record company copy company...same difference) you ask. They have lost a sale. But are they really entitled to it. Now I am not talking about law. Law has nothing to do with this discussion. This is about the sharing of culture and the desire of a people to share to culture. When we like something we want to share it. We want others to like what we have discovered and we want to share it with them. Question, is culture owned by the creator or by the masses that have placed personal value upon it?

Next question if those who value a cultural piece wish to share that piece to increase the cultural awareness of said piece and do it for free has the performer been wronged?

If I pay you to allow me to copy a singular performance so that I may sell it to others thus making a profit off the sharing of culture should I be entitled to a large profit?

Should we pay for culture or should culture be shared freely as long as the performers have food and lodging provided by those that appreciate the performers contribution to an ever changing and evolving culture.

Is it wrong to share culture freely or should a profit be made off of it by those who have nothing to do with actually creating it?

I truly believe that no one deserves to make a profit for the copying of a singular performance and distribution. They are in my opinion entitled to recoup costs and a small profit to be reinvested into their copying technology. Once costs are recovered copies are free. After all they have done nothing to enhance the performance or make it as good as being their for a live performance so why should the be entitled to a large profit for providing an inferior copy of what we gladly pay to see performed live.

I look at some of the things going on in the world as it applies to the sharing of culture and I invite you to find a copy of Steal this Movie and Steal this Movie II, (both are completely free to download legally) and think about what your stance will be on the sharing of culture. As for me, I am all for sharing culture freely as long as the artist has a roof over their head and food to eat, they have nothing to complain about because frankly no one is entitled to be rich, they just want to be rich. Oh one more thing FUCK LARS ULRICH!!!!!!!!!!!!