Those composers did not need copyright since they were paid upfront by rich patrons to write their music. Artists who did not write what patrons wanted to hear, were not able to find full-time employment creating their art. And people who did not know the patrons, or who could not afford tickets to the few public performances, did not get to hear that music.

Once music notation was fairly standardized, artists and patrons could sell sheet music for their works, which allowed them to performed more widely. Sheet music was indeed protected by copyright.

In more modern times, copyright has enabled artists to find success by appealing directly to popular audiences. Modern music labels make their investment decisions based on what they think will be popular, not their personal tastes.

Granted, labels do tend to pick a genre, especially smaller labels--I would not expect Righteous Babe Records to sign Korn. But within their genre they are looking for music that they think will resonate with their fans.

Digital technologies make it possible to get this proving process out of the club and directly into recorded music. Owl City is a great example--his recorded music (which he chose to distribute for free online) got very popular, leading to a recording deal. That deal will allow him to focus on his music full-time, hopefully leading to more complex, sophisticated compositions.

Without copyright, the recording company could have just downloaded his recordings off MySpace, pushed them into iTunes, funded a huge marketing campaign, and make a ton of money without sharing any of it back to the artist. Copyright forces labels to sign legal agreements with artists in order to sell their works.

>Without copyright, the recording company could have just downloaded his recordings off MySpace, pushed them into iTunes, funded a huge marketing campaign, and make a ton of money without sharing any of it back to the artist.

Only to the extent that the record company could convince the public to buy something that was being made available by the artist for free.

You're all over the map: first, participatory music can't produce a Messiah, or a 9th Symphony. Now copyright is neccessary to get artists to create. Which is it? Or is there a third concept, that confuses the argument further?

Let me simplify: It takes significant investment to create high-quality, innovative, original music. In the good ol' days, the only way to get that investment was from a few rich folks. Today, copyright enables more options.

It doesn't take significant investment to create high-quality, innovative, original music - indie bands all over the world are creating such music without seeing any profit, as all the "capital investment" neccessary (good instruments, good recording gear, good software) can be afforded by mid-class people/students as an [expensive, all-consuming] hobby and the only thing needed is lots and lots of time from them and recording/audio folks, which can be obtained w/o cost, if the desire is big enough.

No, the reason for copyright monopolies was that it took significant investment to mass-manufacture and distribute everything even after the creative work itself was written. Starting with books and ending with CD mastering. Now a million-copy album is not the only way, as it's just as economically feasible to do 10 000 "prints" of albums that get 100 copies each, since distribution is free on the net.

I just really strongly disagree with the concept that time has no cost for musicians, simply because they happen to like what they do.

Sure, it's a significant cost - but quite many people are both willing and able to pay that cost; as the cost mostly depends on the stage of your life (family, kids, other commitments) and the desired lifestyle.

The point is, usually market prices are set not by your costs, but by the costs of your competitors. If sufficiently many others can undercut you because they are willing to do it for less or for free... then no matter what your costs are, the market won't pay you anyways. Trying to change such basic behaviors is simply futile, it simply won't work even if the goal is good.

Spoken like a true gentleman.

Now, let's move along to the real issue: copyright is a government granted monopoly. People generally regard monopolies as a bad thing, economically, they distort markets, they encourage rent-seeking (rather than actual production), they have a host of ill effects.

Does the high-quality, innovative, original music that we're getting from the Major Labels right now justify all the drawbacks?

If the big music labels are so terrible, why do artists continue to sign deals with them? It is because the benefits they afford outweigh the drawbacks.

Artists are not society as a whole: they're a special interest. Monopolies effect the entire market, both sellers and buyers. Monopolies have bad effects mostly on those who don't own the monopoly. Artists signing with major labels become part-owners (in a way) of the monopoly good. Of course artists will continue to sign with major labels.

That's a simplistic economic analysis: major lables mostly screw the artists as well, but still, I think my analysis holds a little truth.

But let's get back to the real question: are the market distortions, etc arising from the copyright monopoly worth enough to society in general (not merely some particular set of special interests) to justify it?