Why are you calling it paternalistic, instead of anti-monopolist?
You're essentially excusing slave trade where people sell themselves to become slaves "because they could choose not to", when they actually in the real world couldn't see any other viable option for survival.
And while at it you're blatantly ignoring (or perhaps obscuring) the other option, of targeting the other side of the equation and banning such exploitative contracts, requiring that they offer reasonable terms instead. Are you claiming it is impossible for them, who keep making record profits, to afford to be fair?
Because you are talking over artists' heads like they were little children unable to understand how enslaved they are.
If an artist says, I feel enslaved (and some probably do), I take that seriously, and I would have a very close look at those contracts.
But if an artist says I am acting voluntarily and I demand restrictions on free music downloads, and a consumer of music such as yourself says no you are being enslaved and therefore I feel entitled to free music downloads in the name of fighting big bad media companies, then that is too obviously self-serving for me to take at face value.
The artists are prioritizing their careers first, can't afford great lawyers when they're fresh (so they don't actually know how horrible the contracts are!), and everybody keeps telling them it is harder to succeed alone.
How can't you understand the effects of that? Are laws against lies in advertisement also paternalistic?
And why in the first place do you even believe that piracy is a problem that can be solved legally? Why do you believe it even should be solved using the law? Why should the mere request of the media companies be sufficient to put people in jail!?
You are making a lot of unfounded assumptions about what I believe.
I'm not defending any particular contractual structure. I'm not arguing against banning specific types of contracts. I'm not calling for excessive punishment for copyright infringement or for a surveillance state to enforce copyrights.
I'm saying that artists can be trusted to understand their own situation and act in their own interest, possibly with the help of lawyers or organisations that support them.
If some of them come to a conclusion that is different from yours, you can't just go ahead and declare them mentally incapacitated. That is what I call paternalistic and it is actually a rather moderate way of putting it.
Artists are not enslved imbecils who need to be protected from themselves. They may need to be protected from others, but that is something they need to diagnose themselves and make demands accordingly (some certainly do that).
Our societies are moving pretty quickly in a direction where we take away people's freedom to enter into voluntary agreements with other adults based on the claim that they are in a forced situation and can no longer be trusted to speak for themselves. Just look at prostitution, smoking, gambling, foreign currency loans, variuos fetishes, assisted suicide, etc.
Yes there are situations in which people need to be protected from themselves and their inability to grasp their own situation. But these situations are exceedingly rare. There should be a very high threshold before coming to that conclusion.
> I'm saying that artists can be trusted to understand their own situation and act in their own interest
I'm saying this indeed is wrong in 90% of the cases because the big media companies are intentionally deceptive, and control the message that the artists are getting. Try reading a bunch of blogs of musicians getting fed up by the companies - they're easy to find, and most of yet stories are very similar. They're promised everything and get nothing.
> possibly with the help of lawyers or organisations that support them.
I'm saying this is a necessity with independent organizations that actually care about the individuals, because right now they don't have that kind of support.
>I'm saying this indeed is wrong in 90% of the cases because the big media companies are intentionally deceptive, and control the message that the artists are getting.
And what makes you so uniquely positioned that you cannot be deceived and the information you have access to is not tightly controlled by these supposedly omnipotent media bosses?
I haven't heard anything from you that makes me believe in your superior insight compared to the people who signed the letter the NYT is reporting on.
Artists talk to each other you know. If 10% knew some super secret truth about the media business, the other 90% would quickly learn about it.
I'm afraid you'll have to accept that there are different opinions out there and not everyone who disagrees with you has had wool pulled over their eyes.
Has it occurred to you that the reality may be more nuanced so that reasonable people can disagree? Or that media conglomerates and their business models may be one problem that artists have and copyright infringement on a massive scale another one on top of that?
Looking up recoupment in the music industry is infuriating on its own, it isn't far from modern day slavery. Control over PR budgets is another one, and shitty royalties is a major one.
If you spend a few hours looking up those leads, I sincerely doubt you'll still think I'm misguided or not educated enough afterwards.
I'm not saying that you are misguided or not educated enough.
I have a problem with the principle of disregarding someone's express will based on a claim that he or she is manipulated and unable to speak for themselves.
That is dangerous for a free, democratic society based on the rule of law. If you disagree with someone about what is good for them, you need to convince them, not ignore their will.
And that has nothing to do with the extent to which I agree or disagree with your opinions on the subject of media contracts. We may well agree on a lot more than you seem to think.
You're essentially excusing slave trade where people sell themselves to become slaves "because they could choose not to", when they actually in the real world couldn't see any other viable option for survival.
And while at it you're blatantly ignoring (or perhaps obscuring) the other option, of targeting the other side of the equation and banning such exploitative contracts, requiring that they offer reasonable terms instead. Are you claiming it is impossible for them, who keep making record profits, to afford to be fair?