The argument is simple – that creative works are not simply a product to be sold, but rather something which benefits society as a whole. Copyrights exist to encourage the production of this work – not to help a couple of people make their millions; or as the paper puts it:

Copyright exists to encourage innovation and the creation of new works; in other words to promote social welfare.

The question the paper addresses is whether or not file sharing discourages (economically or otherwise) the creation of creative works. Sure artists might earn a little less (and before I’m asked, I don’t care about the record labels) – but they still earn enough from compliments to their product to keep them alive and encourage them to produce more. If the Red Hot Chili Peppers released a new album for free tomorrow they would still make a killing – thousands would buy tickets for their launch tour and buy the associated merchandise.

A couple of facts I pulled from the report:

• Hollywood earns more from merchandise than from ticket sales
• Concert sales have increased more than music sales have fallen
• Estimates in a related study put income from record sales at just under 10% of total income for 35 top artists

Until the world wakes up and realises this record label executives are going to continue making their millions and in the process stifle the spread of culture. Of course it’s no perfect solution (I’d probably keep buying CDs from the artists I like because I like to own a CD) – but maybe those oh-so committed defenders of the status quo should wake up and realise that the current model is broken.