Did Jan Zahl skip history class 
Jan Zahl writes in Stavanger Aftenposten that the people that listen to music should pay for the music.
http://www.aftenbladet.no/debatt/kommentar/1043762/Kven_skal_betala_for_musikken.htmlIt sounds nice and simple, but lacks some understanding that throughout history culture has always spilled out into the community beyond those that initially paid to appreciate it.
> Who should pay for the music?
The same people that have paid throughout history.
Not much has changed today with the majority of money for musicians coming from concerts, and for film-makers from cinema sales. Concerts and cinemas are the "raw experience" closest associated with the creative essence and its artist. The experience cannot be copied so there's no real threat to the artist.
Additional money from the creative work on some form of medium, such as CDs and DVDs, is a relatively new thing in our history. It has been developed and profited from by middle men, such as recording and production labels, giving very little money back to the artists, typically less than 0.1% earnings. The boom in our use of these mediums has lead to these middle men accumulating too much power too quickly over both audience and artist. For example we see this from how recording labels direct and dictate what "pop" culture is, how difficult it is for artists to "make it" outside of the pop culture, and how little freedom and rights are given to them when signing their first contract with a record label.
Now the boom is going bust because technology has stepped past the need for these mediums. The middle man is left holding onto yesterdays technology and yesterdays business model, the artist trapped behind these middle men failing to see any of the other 99.9% of the money, and the audience is labelled as unethical because they appreciated and helped give the artist popularity.
Trying to undermine the value of the "raw experience" because the live shows are funded indirectly by alcohol is ridiculous. That's just today's economy in Norway and is evident by examining where any Oslo restaurant's earnings come from. Should we make it illegal to eat at home because restaurants can't make enough money directly from the food? Should we make it illegal to read news online because people don't buy papers anymore?
By learning a little history it's soon obvious that the corrupt and unethical element today is the middle man thinking he has all the rights and power in our courts and can hold our artists to blackmail and create scare campaigns by suing selected individuals.
It's time to get back to our roots of culture. To understand that the basic principles are about "experience" and "popularity", neither can be stolen but with sharing comes popularity. With popularity any fresh-thinking business man can make a bucket of money.
