The Cynical Musician has an interesting article about "Graphomania" that's worth a read:

Quote:
One of the big questions facing us today is whether the practical erosion of copyright is a threat to future creativity and if so, how big a threat. Those in the copyright industries and a fair number of creators are saying: yes, it is a problem – just as we’d expect them to. However, there are also many people from the other side of the barricade who are saying this is nonsense. In their view, creators will always create, because of a deep-seated drive that forces them to do so. Graphomania, in fact.

...

The creator who’ll work for free has, in all likelihood, already learnt that nobody cares about what he has to offer enough to actually reach into their pockets. He doesn’t expect payment and may go as far as saying that he doesn’t care about payment, because true art is its own reward.
The article struck me as reminiscent of this speech delivered in 1841 by Thomas Macaulay:

Quote:
The advantages arising from a system of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright. You cannot depend for literary instruction and amusement on the leisure of men occupied in the pursuits of active life. Such men may occasionally produce compositions of great merit. But you must not look to such men for works which require deep meditation and long research. Works of that kind you can expect only from persons who make literature the business of their lives. Of these persons few will be found among the rich and the noble. The rich and the noble are not impelled to intellectual exertion by necessity. They may be impelled to intellectual exertion by the desire of distinguishing themselves, or by the desire of benefiting the community. But it is generally within these walls that they seek to signalise themselves and to serve their fellow-creatures. Both their ambition and their public spirit, in a country like this, naturally take a political turn. It is then on men whose profession is literature, and whose private means are not ample, that you must rely for a supply of valuable books. Such men must be remunerated for their literary labour. And there are only two ways in which they can be remunerated. One of those ways is patronage; the other is copyright.
I think the article is interesting because it gets to a question that is at the heart of many debates about the future of the music industry - is copyright necessary? For those who say yes, there are still plenty of things to argue about: how much protection, how long, and how to enforce. But some reject the idea that copyright itself is not justified. It provides no incentive to produce creative works, or whatever incentive it provides is far outweighed by its costs.