Let's talk about the difference between
music and a classical "public good", and
continue with the example of the
renovation of the neighborhood. What would
happen if every family had their own
preferred architect (or handyman, or
carpenter) and would insist that they will
allow nobody else to work in their house?
Since there will be absolutely no
possibility to contract one big company
and let them do the renovation for
everybody, there will be no point in doing
the project together and each family will
do its renovation separately. This is what
would happen if every person had a
completely different taste in music, and
would fancy only a very small and refined
set of bands.

So big companies do big projects for
clients who don't have very specialised
tastes. The more elitstic clients contract
their architects and craftsmen privately,
and pay them accordingly.

The same goes in music: if you have a very
unique taste in music, (which is, of
course, inevitable if you are an active
participant in the "Ayal"), be prepared to
pay for your "special" music because your
favorite artist probably has a very small
audience, consisting of you and a few
other "knowledgeable" fans.

But if you also like the music of a very
popular artist - copy the music freely!
This artist will anyway become rich
because of live concerts, CDs, selling all
kinds of T-shirts and souvenirs, etc.

To summarize, I suggest that popular music
and "artistic" music be given different
treatment. Sometimes music is a public
good, but sometimes it is a personal
service.

Yes. We do agree that popular music is a
public good. But if we have less of it,
will this be bad? I am not so sure.
Apparently, some of this music is created
without any aims but to sell. What I would
like is to have the same total amount of
music, but less of the commercial one and
more of the specific music that targets
only a small audience, but gives it a
deeper experience.
In other words, if we want to ask whether
free copying is good or bad for the music
market, we may first need to agree on what
kind of "ideal" music market we would like
to see - not in terms of my or your own
taste, but in terms of the interests and
welfare of society.
Another way to look at it: in the current
situation, musicians who sell a lot to the
public are well-rewarded. Musicians who
sell mainly to other musicians earn very
little, even though their indirect
influence on the musical landscape may be
very big. Is this a good system?