YES STREAMING MUSIC HAS BEEN $10 FOR A DECADE. WHY? 1) The contrary position is

YES STREAMING MUSIC HAS BEEN $10 FOR A DECADE. WHY?

1) The contrary position is that all works that are individually reproducible are subsidized for no particular reason whatsoever, and that this contributes substantially to the declining quality (capital content) of the arts over the century. In other words, why do we subsidize it?

2) Patents and Copyrights are subsidies, like welfare, Rent Seeking, or Corruption. While Trademarks are weights and measures. Creative commons solves this problem by requiring compensation for commercial use but not personal consumption.

3) Copyright has inverted investment in the arts from aristocratic, heroic, and capitalizing to underclass, victimhood, and hyper consumption and hedonism. Arts like any market follow incentives, and these incentives are to the worst possible of all incentives.

4) I don’t have any reasonable expectation that copyright other than creative commons will survive the next decade or so.

That’s why streaming is only $10. Customers are paying for service not music. Because it’s already worth $0. Music is free. Nothing can stop it. Sharing won.

And that’s a good thing.