Paul Graham has lost the plot

At first I wasn't sure if "Defining Property" was one of the most insightful essays I read in a long time, or lazy logic on Paul's part trying to protect the internet in the copyright debate. But I'm pretty sure Paul is talking about something important now.

What he hits on is that there is no scarcity anymore. Media is reproduced and shared freely and instantly, because that is the nature of the internet. The 'pipes' (expensive, physical means of distribution) the recording industry pumped music through for decades have now dissappeared and have been replaced with an open environment. Anything that tries to close that environment is just trying to create artificial scarcity.

It's true that media costs money to produce. And the publishers can still charge for it, if they make the distribution model convenient (or not). But that is still a one time cost which promotes the artist. And let's not act like artists are going to just stop making media if they don't think publishers are going to give them a big payday. They aren't. The more likely scenario is that the distribution will shift to being handled by the artists and that money will be made through concerts and merchandise. Downloaded music will be paid for sometimes, but mostly used for advertisement.

So in your view the entirety of the 99 cent charge should go to Apple? The song you wanted to download just popped into existence before hand with no time, effort or talent from an artist at all (or discovery by a label)? Please tell me more about this magical music tree.

But pg's argument is prescriptive. For example, it includes the question "Should people not be able to charge for content?" and then gives a (conditional) answer.

There's nothing wrong with writing a prescriptive essay; it doesn't make it in any sense weaker. But it is prescriptive, and Rob's argument here is specifically with the prescriptive part of the argument--in other words, he argues that music is not so much like smells that it supports the overall prescription pg is making.

PG's analogy is only flawed in that it's meant to be prescriptive and not fundamental, so it admits arguments like this. Producing content costs money, yes. But once it's been released to the public, it's impossible to restrict copying. Cold hard fact, move on. Sorry if it's not the way you'd like - you can take your ball and go home, but you can't go back in time.

All the interest and investment in new distribution services is basically looking to be part of RIAA 2.0 - continuing profitable distribution channels based on consumer laziness. The goal of the record industry has never been to compensate artists, and the decreasing prevalence of big-name acts means there's even fewer lucky ones with the power to demand so. Meanwhile, the pirate side has accepted that distribution is free and is trying to usher in the future so sustainable artist-beneficial (whatever that turns out to mean) structures can be created. Oink was responsible for my going to many shows, while the risk of being hassled over torrenting (I've become more risk-adverse) has resulted in me knowing very few bands on the concert listings.

It bothers me as well. Perhaps OP should change his question to "What would happen if creators couldn't police the area outside of the music festival to make sure that nobody benefits from the sound that happens to escape the fences?"