If you carry the conservative argument to its logical limit, we should not be able to gain the benefit of enjoyment of any copyrighted music without paying for it directly or indirectly. Are the kids in the park break-dancing to a boombox and encircled by a crowd of enjoying onlookers while passing the hat illegally charging for a public performance without compensating the artist? You could make that argument. And what about taping off the radio, something that was pretty common in days of yore (and some of us still do on occassion)? Is not the internet just the new radio?
I think one of the problems with the strict constructionist view is that it is historically, prehistorically, and perhaps even genetically disconnected from the ways which people traditionally invent, perform, propagate, receive and employ music. Music is tens of thousands of years old and universal, while copyright law and recorded sound are fairly new developments and culture-specific. Prior to the last few hundred years, all music was "folk" music, and until very recently most music still was. Perhaps our natural heritage as human beings is part of the reason we might find it understandably difficult not to consider the music we love to be "ours" in some deeper way, no matter who wrote it or how much we respect the concept of intellectual property rights in the abstract. That might sound like a rationalization, but I think it correlates strongly with reality. I do believe that once an artist puts a work out into the world, it ceases to be theirs in many ways -- especially if it is successful -- and that this is an integral part of both the bargain and the attraction which comes with being recognized for one's work.
I think one of the problems with the strict constructionist view is that it is historically, prehistorically, and perhaps even genetically disconnected from the ways which people traditionally invent, perform, propagate, receive and employ music. Music is tens of thousands of years old and universal, while copyright law and recorded sound are fairly new developments and culture-specific. Prior to the last few hundred years, all music was "folk" music, and until very recently most music still was. Perhaps our natural heritage as human beings is part of the reason we might find it understandably difficult not to consider the music we love to be "ours" in some deeper way, no matter who wrote it or how much we respect the concept of intellectual property rights in the abstract. That might sound like a rationalization, but I think it correlates strongly with reality. I do believe that once an artist puts a work out into the world, it ceases to be theirs in many ways -- especially if it is successful -- and that this is an integral part of both the bargain and the attraction which comes with being recognized for one's work.