Who cares if there are no live musicians, we have plenty of recordings. Who cares if there are no sculptors, we have 3D printing machines that can scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly.
And for the love of God don't tell me on the freaking HACKER news network that technology needs to be restricted "for the good of art".
3D printing machines will scan existing objects and reproduce them perfectly, and this is a problem why? If you have all the free bowls and plates and shoes you need, well, maybe you'll have more free time to sculpt.
On the other hand, who cares if the middlemen get paid to distribute frozen copies of art, even if such distribution is to cheap to measure?
Yes there was a lot of music before copyright, but copying was less efficient back then, so your arguments don't really make the watertight case you seem to think they do.
I know some brilliant musicians who have turned to other means to live, and who no longer use their gifts, talents and skills in music. Instead there's vast amounts of crap floating around, with the occasional gem that's hard to find.
I'm not saying copyright made it better, because there were the toads and slimey bastards in the middle, taking their excessive cut and squeezing the artists. What I'd really like to see is the best artists (not just musicians) being fairly compensated, just as I'd like to see the best programmers getting the recognition they deserve.
It doesn't happen, it probably won't happen. Certainly it never has happened.
But instead of technology just making the copying easier, wouldn't it be nice if it also made the proper compensation of artists possible.
Won't happen. The very people who could make it happen are the ones who claim it doesn't matter.
I could not live in a world where MPAA gets their will and be perfectly happy.