> How would you consider the American music industry an "external interest" in the USA? The American music industry isn't American. It's international. When a

> How would you consider the American music industry an "external interest" in the USA? The American music industry isn't American. It's international. When a corporation gets to be the size of, say, Universal, their interests are not bound to a specific country. To me, that makes their interests external to America's interests. > I think this is a very broad, gross generalization. Sure, musically-inclined folks will probably still continue to play instruments or write songs as a hobby, even if there weren't a financial incentive. It is a broad generalization to say that artists are fuelled by financial gain. I love designing and developing digital products and if I didn't work 9-5, I'd be doing it more often and probably with less restrictions, less overhead and less BS. We can't fathom this because it doesn't exist. The method provided is thought to be the only true way to "make it". And that's wrong. > Let's say we flipped the law and made it illegal to sell music & movies. You don't need to flip it. All you have to do is align with your peers and create communities that encourage artistic expression. Nothing wrong with people being the distribution network. There are thousands of years of cultural evidence that distribution of art & ideas is abundant when necessary. > but it's not nearly as simple as "we'll always have art regardless of if there's an industry to support it!" And yet art existed before the entertainment industry. Really, if Switzerland/Sweden's laws are such a threat to their profits, why haven't they pulled out?