We have come to accept a vast panoply of behaviors of sharing creative works and of allowing people to "consume" music, art, movies, etc. without directly compensating the creators. Radio, television, libraries, used books, etc. We accept such things largely because we've grown used to them. We have lived long enough in an era of libraries and radio to understand that they do not destroy the ability of artists to make a living.<p>Uncompensated sharing in the digital age has been unmoored from some of the traditional limits on sharing, moving it well outside the comfort zone for a lot of people and causing a lot of backlash against the phenomenon. But even though the returns on uncompensated sharing in the digital age are sometimes more diffuse and indirect than for the more traditional forms of sharing we are used to they still exist. Art will survive. Artists will not end up in the poor house. And eventually people will grow as used to what gets labelled "piracy" today as they have to libraries, museums, and radio.
Is radio dead in the USA? In Australia I think the radio culture is quite vibrant. Personally I download music from time to time that sits on my phone but I listen to the radio 99% of the time because it introduces and plays the best music anyway. The radio stations that I listen to are govt funded[1] so they don't have any ads and have a community focus of getting people to go see live concerts and listen to good music.<p>We also have commercial radio stations that play disposable child-like pop music (combined with horrible ads and drone-like presenters) that is well suited to 13 year old girls but still becomes popular with the masses. So there is something for everyone.<p>I don't support SOPA (not that it counts in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter) but I think that artists should get some money from somewhere for their efforts. People listen to the radio free but they still have the option of buying the album. Downloading the album free makes that option redundant.<p>In Australia people typically pay $40 - $70 a month for their internet which - if they use the allocated capacity - they are using to pirate music, movies and TV without ads. I'd prefer to see part of that money going to an artist fund rather than the ISPs and broadband resellers.<p>[1] triplej.net.au and www.abc.net.au/classic/
Interestingly enough, he defends record companies as well here. He's in a very compromise position:<p><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/01/31/neil-young-defends-both-record-companies-and-piracy/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/01/31/neil-young-defends...</a>
Can you really equate piracy to radio when you can listen to what you want on-demand? This is a big difference from radio and services like Pandora which don't allow you to listen to exactly what you want when you want.
It is so true. Just as a busker would play music for anyone, and gets an appreciative tip once in a while, pre-recorded music can be seen as a leveraged way of busking.<p>In some way, the record industry is doing piracy a service by increasing the perceived value of music. Too bad they don't get a cut for doing that.
He should write a song about it. Here are some suggested lyrics:<p><pre><code> Hey hey, my my,
Piracy will never die,
There's more to the torrent
Than meets the eye,
Hey hey, my my.</code></pre>
Its an interesting viewpoint, and one that is probably very true.<p>People often hear pirated material and like it so much they immediately purchase it. Not only that one album, but even sometimes substantial amounts of the artist's back catalogue. Which was and still is kind of the point with music radio.<p>Same with movies.<p>I wonder how much cash piracy actually generates as substantial income -- quite a bit I believe. And probably more than it denies. Quite a lot of people are exposed to material they would never have encountered, like it and pay up for it.