OneManga shutting down

[Ayiekie]

I find your arguing somewhat disingenuous given your previous comments on the issue,

I don't know why, since it's based in the same premise as my previous comments.

Because your actual position, unless it's changed, is that artists should not be doing art to make a living. That is what you said the last time we discussed the matter. Thus I do not have any particular belief that you are arguing in good faith, or, to be more generous, that we come from even remotely compatible starting assumptions.

But music is, by its very nature, ephemeral. It's only when recorded that it becomes as lasting as a sculpture.

So what?

However, a sculpture can be used as a form around which a mold is made, and the mold used to mass-produce the sculpture. Likewise, a song can captured in a master recording, and the master recording used to mass-produce the song. (Yes, not every sculpture becomes a form for a mold, and not every song becomes a master recording for a record.) I don't see how this argument is even valid, let alone relevant.

And, uh, the molds are protected by copyright, which has been pointed out to you. So... what's your point? What are you driving at here, exactly?

The RIAA would have us believe that more popular songs are worth more money, since they ask for damages based on number of downloads of a song.

I really couldn't care less what the RIAA would "have you believe". Why is that relevant? Am I the RIAA? Am I associated with them? Have I espoused a belief in their position on the matter? Have I even brought them up?

Recording a song changes it from an ephemeral artwork to a lasting artwork, just as sculpting a statue in ice changes the statue from a lasting artwork to an ephemeral artwork. Allowing for this behaviour makes the two types of artistry more directly comparable.

Except they still aren't, because one is a physical object that cannot be perfectly replicated, and one is not a physical object and can be. You should be familiar with this concept, since it is the one ever-so-tediously quoted to explain why pirating things isn't really stealing even though it is illegally taking something you have no right to.

Why?

I explained that already. The creators create the product. The public is already rewarded by having the privilege of consuming it.
Why do you think the public deserves to supersede the artist and gain as much right over their work, during the artist's lifetime, as the artist has?

And I do not see the need to further reward the artists for doing nothing. They've been paid once already for that work. (Unless, as you pointed out, they chose to release their work into the public domain - but that's their choice.)

And yet, that isn't how it works in any other field, which is why pensions, stockholders, and so forth exist. There is a concept of payment in gratitude for services rendered which exists throughout our society and is why we do not abandon our elderly on ice floes. I believe significant cultural contributions are at least as important as being a founder of Walmart, and deserve reward.