Well first off you can read this article
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20091117/NEWS01/11...
Clearly copyright is limiting the ability for certain artist to make a living due to the threats, and impossible cost of tracking what the artist are performing. Instead of paying 3 licenses all these venues have instead shut down.

Another way it limits culture is the fact that musical composition is not a limitless medium. Only certain key combination sounds pleasant, and even some of those sound similar enough to be considered infringing. If you consider all the music produced over the last hundred years, how much of the scope of music has been copyrighted? There is a professor at my University that is studying that concept, and he thinks that music has either reached its limit of permutations, or is about to reach it. His research is to find new ways of composing music to create a new genre. Tried finding the article, but I can't seem to find it on my schools website.

Furthermore, copyright creates centralized control. Before mandatory fees for radio play, artist could defer their fees to encourage radio play. When the big 4 first lobbied for the law, it was going to be that artist could opt in or out of the program. When they realized this would lead to their artist not getting any airplay, they set forth to make it mandatory and won. Now all you hear on the radio is big 4 music, where as without the copyright laws you would have a more vast array of music played.

There are others, but as I doubt you will take the time to absorb my argument I'll just leave it at that.

No, Net neutrality was a grassroots campaign to get the government to mandate that internet bandwidth can't be managed, that all traffic should be treated neutrally. Its a recent marketing ploy by ISP's that has pushed the idea that Netneutrality is bad, they are the ones that are favoring the idea of free market ideals. Your just a pawn, spreading their message. Explain to me how net neutrality increases government regulation of the internet?

Canadian television shows struggle to compete with American shows due to their larger market base. Since the industries can't develop under that competition with the limited funds that economy can never be built. The same can easily apply to developing nations. They struggle to compete with big budget corporations, copyright laws further limit what they can and can't produce, and also increases the cost of production.

Would you care to explain how offering a service to people is being a leech. The government is not being democratic, a company has identified a fundamental weakness to legislation and is giving society what it demands. The members at zeropaid have been telling you for months how useless attempts to censor filesharing is, yet you continue to believe the copyright cartel can legislate a victory.

This is about far more than entertainment intellectual property. It covers drug patents, and other intellectual property that would help them advance their organizations. They also support what I've been saying for a while now that copyright hampers the little guys ability to release content and compete. Either way, maybe Disney would like to pay the people they ripped off their stories from, oh wait they became public when the laws made sense, and copyright had a time limit within ones lifetime.

Why, because they believe in consumer rights?

These countries with sound reasoning are the ones that are likely to take over power from the U.S. who is suffering from too many years of greed and ignoring the public. The western. economy is unstable due to years of governments giving in to corporate demands, decimating the foundation that made innovation thrive. Now these budding economies are supporting sound logic, rather than money and they will surely benefit.

Most of the cost associated to the development of an artist is marketing, beyond that the cost is minimal. When a business is in trouble it cuts out the fat, most of the current industry is fat, and no required for the development of an artist. With digital distribution the cost is greatly reduced, the internet offers up free advertising and exposure, and in my opinion does not reflect the price. The way you are looking at it is also flawed, people have adapted to listening to more music, music consumption has grown, but entertainment budgets can't keep up with that growth. My collection of music at 1$ a track would cost $5000, there is no way I could afford to buy that much music. But if I took the AllofMp3 model, which was selling music at 25 cents a track, it becomes viable for students. Over the years I acquired my music I could afford 1250$ for the collection. That would be about 150$ a year. You can't look at peoples buying habits in individual purchases, you have to look at it overall, and across all entertainment medium. The current music price makes no sense for students, and continuing to harp about it won't change that fact.

Strange, the most expletive argument comes from the supposed mature, well rounded, informed individual. Would you care to elaborate on how filesharing has harmed the industry when independent studies are showing the contrary. People have a budgeted entertainment budget, that money is still the same, and some studies show it growing. CD sales are down, but the overall music industry was found to be growing in revenue, the money has simply shifted to concert revenue. The movie industry has posted record sales for the last decade. What is this loss you speak of, and who are these broke losers. Off the top of my head I know of two studies that showed the heaviest file sharers were the biggest content purchasers, this was done for the Canadian government. Those filesharers must be cheap to be the biggest purchasing demographic. Grow up, educate yourself, and learn the reality of the industry. If you want to talk smack, back it up with logic, and not some preschool cry fest.

Nice, but you didn't refute my point that free software is not an ideology, its a reality. You just completely side stepped what I was arguing. You have also yet to point out how me pirating software I wouldn't have purchased at the asking price is harming the industries. Did they loose money from my actions? How is this taking away their livelihood?