Judge reduces file-sharing damages award by 90 percent.

[mhendo]

@Lemur866

Well, that’s slightly different than my argument. I argue that people are going to do it anyway, so the artists and companies will HAVE to suck it up and find a new business model, because they have no choice. Because, as you say, people are going to do it anyway, and United States law doesn’t apply around the world.

The difference, i guess, is one of tone.

I don’t disagree that the current situation is one that the recording industry needs to respond to in particular ways. As you correctly observe, people ARE downloading stuff for free, and that’s not likely to change in the near future.

But some people seem to be arguing that not only is this how things are, but that people who don’t like the recording industry’s current model somehow have a right to download shit for free, and that the recording industry doesn’t have a right to profit from its investment. They are also using spurious logic like the ridiculous horse-drawn carriage comparison, failing to appreciate that not wanting and therefore not buying something, on the one hand, is quite different from wanting something but refusing to pay its creator and taking it instead, on the other.

I also completely agree with you about format shifting, portability, etc., etc. Even in my post-downloading days, i have never purchased a piece of DRM-equipped music, because i think it’s bullshit and refuse to support the model.

But this leads to another issue: the question of what models are currently available, and the changing nature of the business model. It is, in fact, now possible to buy hundreds of thousands of different songs without the sorts of restrictions that you and i dislike. Amazon sells songs as MP3s, completely portable and DRM-free. Since 2009, the iTunes store has removed DRM and increased the bitrates for its AAC files to 256kbps. Just those two stores between them offer huge amounts of music.

Personally, i’ve never used iTunes, in part because i don’t like their business model. I should be able to purchase a song online and download it straight through my browser without downloading and installing a new piece of software. I know that some people love iTunes software, but i find it a bloated pice of crap on Windows machines, and don’t want to use it. I have purchased music from Amazon, and been happy with it.

I know some audiophiles don’t like what they consider to be the inferior quality of MP3 files, but as i said, much of my own listening is done in the car, where wind and road and traffic noise, as well as the quality of my stereo system, as much greater barriers to a perfect listening experience than the minimal reduction in quality found in a 256k MP3. If i need my compressed music to be better quality, the fact that hard drive space is so cheap allows me to encode using a lossless codec like FLAC, which doesn’t compress file size as much as MP3 does.

More importantly, there’s the question of who gets downloaded. Some people argue that P2P enables people to get music that falls outside the “mainstream” represented by the recording industry, a point i don’t dispute. What i would dispute, though, is whether such artists constitute anything more than a small minority of downloaded material.

I just went to a couple of well-known bit-torrent sites and looked at the music offerings on the front couple of pages. I recognized almost every artist available as well-known, mainstream artists. Not only that, but a quick search suggests that just about every one of the albums i saw offered on the torrent sites is also available on Amazon and/or iTunes. So it’s not like most people are downloading music in order to move outside the mainstream represented by the RIAA. If my (admittedly small and anecdotal) experience is any indication, they are downloading from P2P services the same sort of music they could get through authorized channels; the main difference is that they’re not paying for it.

Similarly, back when i downloaded music through the Soulseek client, some of the most commonly-available artists were groups like U2, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Madonna, Coldplay, etc., etc. The prevalence of this stuff doesn’t really provide much support for the argument that the recording industry is stifling people’s choices. It may be doing that, but the fact is that what the recording industry produces is also, in many cases, incredibly popular. As evidenced not only by its presence on the charts, but by its ubiquity on P2P networks.

As i said earlier, learning that someone downloads stuff doesn’t worry me a great deal, both because i think the harm isn’t especially great, and because i’ve done it myself. But, if someone is going to do it, they could at least have the decency not to try and pretend that they’re generously helping the recording industry to shed an outdated business model.

[cosmosdan]

@mhendo

As i said earlier, learning that someone downloads stuff doesn’t worry me a great deal, both because i think the harm isn’t especially great, and because i’ve done it myself. But, if someone is going to do it, they could at least have the decency not to try and pretend that they’re generously helping the recording industry to shed an outdated business model.

Thanks for your input. I can get somewhat preachy on this subject and I don’t mean to be. I don’t think it’s a major moral setback for anyone but don’t pretend it’s because you’re helping.

As a musician myself in a town where struggling artists and writers I everywhere I’m a little more touchy about it. I’m not happy when a musician gets screwed by a label. I’m also not happy when the consumer feels entitled to steal that persons work without there approval and then trys to justify it with bullshit arguments.

[ivan_astikov]

For musicians, even if you only performed live, people would still record your performances. If you can make a working wage just performing live, and with a little non-piss taking merchandising, why would you even want the hassle of a contract and leeching middle-men?

[cosmosdan]

@ivan_astikov

For musicians, even if you only performed live, people would still record your performances. If you can make a working wage just performing live, and with a little non-piss taking merchandising, why would you even want the hassle of a contract and leeching middle-men?

Distribution. If you want to reach a larger audience and sell a few million CDs instead of a few hundred you have deal with all that big business crap.

I think for a lot of musicians the wise choice is to have a job or career apart from music and play gigs for fun and extra money. It can be a pretty decent 2nd income. A few artists and bands have aslo done okay as regional acts and maintained thier independence. That’s a valid choice.

[brickbacon]

@cosmosdan

I’m also not happy when the consumer feels entitled to steal that persons work without there approval and then trys to justify it with bullshit arguments.

They are not bullshit arguments; you just happen to disagree with them. That’s fine, but don’t pretend that they are illogical just because you are more sympathetic to industry rhetoric. People take and benefit from other people’s work and ideas all the time. The only difference is that we don’t accept as a predicate that we need to get the permission of people in certain fields to do so. We accept that once an idea, joke, recipe, etc. is out in the world, that we have a limited right and ability to leverage it to make more money. Music was different because it could technology hadn’t evolved enough to reduce the aforementioned leverage. That’s no longer the case. You can grumble about morality while cursing the darkness, or you can adapt just as everyone else has.

[cosmosdan]

@brickbacon

They are not bullshit arguments; you just happen to disagree with them. That’s fine, but don’t pretend that they are illogical just because you are more sympathetic to industry rhetoric. People take and benefit from other people’s work and ideas all the time. The only difference is that we don’t accept as a predicate that we need to get the permission of people in certain fields to do so. We accept that once an idea, joke, recipe, etc. is out in the world, that we have a limited right and ability to leverage it to make more money. Music was different because it could technology hadn’t evolved enough to reduce the aforementioned leverage. That’s no longer the case. You can grumble about morality while cursing the darkness, or you can adapt just as everyone else has.

Of course we build upon the foundation of those who came before us. It’s not the same thing at all and this is just one more example of bullshit arguments.

btw, I’m not pretendig they are illogical. They are demonstratably and fairly obviously bullshit.

If someone offers something for sale you can either buy it or not. To declare you are somehow entitled and justified in taking it without paying is really indefensible with any thing close to logic.

[kanicbird]

@cosmosdan

I think the message you got was that we should work toward Eutopia and brotherly love , not that we’re already there. In all honesty, what do you suppose would happen if people decided to not have any security,

Yes Utopia is on it’s way, along with the Family of God that we are all members of, but till then, God is willing to protect His children doing His work. And Utopia is not something we can work towards, it’s not in us, it’s in Him, and only Him. All we have to do is let Jesus live through us, there is no work we can do to achieve Utopia except to say to God ‘though I may not understand it, you take me to the point where you rule over me totally in you Love, give me no option for disobedience’ and let God work.

As for being protected and not needing security, I believe it depends on the condition of your heart, scriptures show, and I have experienced, divine protection while I walk though some of the areas of the world freely where it is expected that very bad things will happen just because of the color if your skin. I have walked freely out of gangs that wanted to at least mug me, but their gestures and actions spoke of a far worse fate.

never porsecute a thief, allow people to take whatever they want without paying, etc.

Jesus never prosecuted a thief, actually welcoming one into Paradise, and His example is to be our model. I believe that the thief is not the one to be blamed, but it was the world system that showed him the only way to make it is to steal, so I blame him not as he knew no other way.

This is where faith that God is over everything comes in, if something it taken but your heart is right with God, your heavenly Father will replace it, if not upgrade it. It is faith that there is some higher power above man who is watching over everything, and IMHO if there is not then everything, including theft means nothing.

God does allow a time for the wicked to prosper, we can see that in scripture and history, but there comes a day where God, well basically has had enough, and changes things, empire rise and fall, both political and financial and other. If people are allowed to take what does not belong to them freely, it will just hasten the cry against them and the fall will happen sooner and harder IMHO. The world system seeks to delay that fall, allowing the wicked to prosper longer.

real people use their gifts to create a physical product that they offer for sale in order to benifit society and make an honest living. When others decide to take what they offer for sale without paying, there’s a word for it.

Digital downloads are not a physical product, but a virtual one. A CD, or tape or record is a physical product, many times with artwork or lyrics, something nice to put on the shelf to see. P2P digital downloads are also not a service of the artist, but of a fellow brother or sister freely offering their time, so no fee should be charged for that either. Ultimately we are all members of the same family, and ultimately members of the same body and one with each other, so it is sharing within the family, which you even said is OK IIRC.

You couldn’t do it convinceingly. Non labour copies can benifit the consumer when the seller lowers the price because of lower cost. If they don’t do that you could argue they are price gouging or greedy. A musical composition represents hours of work and effort. That costs isn’t recouped in the sale of a few CDs.

The world system has gotten away from what really matters, God will provide for you doing His work much more the then RIAA ever could. It’s what you put your faith in, God or man.

The financial issue you mention is really a lie. I believe you know the principal that the more you give the more you get, though it really does not make sense. The finances of the world are very much a illusion, we are like very small children, in our limited knowledge often given the choice between a nickle and a dime, and in our worldly vision taking the nickle because it is bigger. This is the reality of our financial system, what we see is a illusion. You have have tens of millions of dollars and be poor or much less and be very rich.

To put it in terms of Plato’s allegory of the cave, what God wants to give you is very much, what the world wants you to do is take a fraction of that. But God’s share is held away from the light source, so it appears small, and we see it as small, though it has very much value, the world holds their offer closer so it appears much larger. In our limited vision we take the larger one, we see more dollars in our account, but have far less in the end, and paying higher taxes as well. This is why God offers us the chance to see things through His eyes, so we can see what is really being offered. In this case distributing what God has provided will reap the reward direstly from God, restricting it will reap less.

Taking it for free without the authors or owners permission is unethical. It’s a very basic principle that you cannot argue away.

The author is God, he says take freely, the steward may or may not stand with God, but the owner has spoken.

Please stop. The point I’ve repeated is that the owner gets to decide what to give away, rather than the end user taking it without permission. Does that story include that donkey being used without the owners permission?

According to scriptures the donkey was taken without any indication the owner was notified, and a indication that he was not at the time. Just some brawny guys came to some hired help and said the Lord needs this donkey and took it. Think about that if some ‘thugs’, which you could not overpower, came to take your car.

Also you may want to check out:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010553-261.html
The very term steward means to be responsible for and manage correctly right? So if you’re the steward of a certain work, what should you do if someone is taking it without permission and not paying. I think Jesus parables about stewardship in the NT make it clear. If god tells him directly to give it away that’s another story. If you tell me god told you all music should be free we can end this conversation immediately.
[/QUOTE]

[cosmosdan]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

That’s exactly why file-sharing is so ubiquitous. Because the labels aren’t simply taking advantage of artist, they are taking advantage of consumers. Many music fans (and artists) are feeling ripped off by high CD prices. The only reason those prices are so high is not because artists want it that way, but because it supports the labels’ greed. How did it escape you that the record company has a 40% profit margin of which the artist earns less than one-half of one percent of the record company’s profits for its efforts. What happened to making sure people get paid for their work?

Bullshit. Let’s not pretend that piracy occurs because the consumer is concerned about the artist. You need to learn to seperate issues instead of trying to use one wrong to justify another.
It’s nice that NIN could take the moral high ground after the very companies he rails against helped him become a multimillionare. At least he called it stealing over and over again rather than the “I don’t want to call it what it really is” term of sharing.
It isn’t about the price of CDs and you know it. If CDs were half the price people would still take them for free simply because they can and they don’t expect to suffer any consequences. It’s impossible for record labels to rip off consumers. Why? Because they’re not selling anything you have to have.

How many music contracts allow the artist to set the consumer value of their songs? Why do we keep discussing this as if the creator of the art is in control of their art, when, in fact, the reality is more often than not that the creator has very little control over distribution and pricing?

Except those wanting their music for free also don’t give a rat’s ass about the artist because they will gladly pirate a CD that the artist paid for and tries to sell themselves won’t they?

Why are those artists more entitled to protections than the artists being raped by giant record labels?

They’re not. Both should be paid for thier efforts. You’re not forcing the labels to write better contracts by piracy .

If restrictive digital copyright fails, all artists are on an even playing field, whether they have a record deal or not. Artists are not automatically entitled to make a living off their art any more than retail employees are

.
Of course they’re not entitled to make a living. If you don’t like or want thier product you don’t have to buy it. They do have a reasonable expectation to be paod for something they offer for sale if you decide you want it.
If your boss said, “Hey BEG, since we’ve already paid you for 40 hours this week and we think that’s enough, I’d like you to come in and put in an extra 8 hours for no pay at all” would you find that perfectly reasonable.?

If I have to supplement my income in other ways, that’s the way it is. That doesn’t mean we should allow them to become exploited by record companies. But if they can find a way to do it that their consumers accept as fair (i.e., you turn me on to your music, I pay you to perform it for me or movie director pays you to put it in a movie I’m going to pay him to watch), everyone wins.

If you want to change the music business model try doing it honestly. You can haggle at a store if you want and see if you can get a better deal, but in the end it’s an agreement between you and the merchant. You don’t get to arbitraily decide the prices are too high and just take what you want.

I’d be curious to know if any retailer has actually tried our policy and had it fail? Did yours? Why did the percentage of abusers rise? Or did it? Perhaps the people your company came to see as abusers were really dealing with substandard quality. I don’t deny that there is a certain percentage of people who will game any system, but I don’t agree that it’s a significant percentage.

What does your retailer sell? Any electronics? Most businesses that have that model sell high quality merchandise with enough markup to handle the returns. People that sell inexspensive products to a different market could not survice with that model You can’t offer lifetime guarentees on $12 dress shirts and jeans.

WRT file-sharing, I believe the problem lies with outdated distribution and copyright models, not with an increasingly abusive population. The models do not reflect society’s priorities and values.

But stealing does? How wonderful
I repeat, there are honest ways of forcing companies to chage their business models.

Which my experience in retail actually does not support.

But the experience of several giant retailers who have been around for decades, does.

It doesn’t really matter what the justification is, it only matters whether artists can survive the consumer rejection of the old revenue models. If they can adapt, as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails seem to be doing, they may achieve success that also comes with freedom.

It’s much easier to give things away when you’ve already achieved success. The crucial difference is the person who owns the product participating in the decision.
If Band A decides to try giving thier music away to try and make money with tours and T-shirts, that’s fine they made the choice. If band B doesn’t want to do that you are not justified in saying “Screw you, Band A does it so I’m just taking your stuff”
If a grocer offers a free sample in aisle 1 try going to the other ailses and taking free samples just because you think they should adapt and change their marketing or thier prices are too high. What reaction would you expect? Would they be wrong or right?

[mhendo]

@kanicbird

The world system has gotten away from what really matters, God will provide for you doing His work much more the then RIAA ever could. It’s what you put your faith in, God or man.

If you want to carry on your tiresome witnessing, go open your own goddamn thread.

[ivan_astikov]

No, cosmosdan, it’s exactly about the price of the cd’s, dvd’s, etc. Or, at least it is for me. I don’t even download content off the internet. I’m happy to visit my local bootlegger on the market once a week to check out what the companies are trying to flog this time, and if I find something I particurlarly like, I’ll keep an eye out for a legitimate copy appearing in a “bargain bin” somewhere.

[cosmosdan]

@ivan_astikov

No, cosmosdan, it’s exactly about the price of the cd’s, dvd’s, etc. Or, at least it is for me. I don’t even download content off the internet. I’m happy to visit my local bootlegger on the market once a week to check out what the companies are trying to flog this time, and if I find something I particurlarly like, I’ll keep an eye out for a legitimate copy appearing in a “bargain bin” somewhere.

right, there are legitimate ways to buys things cheaper without piracy. Those folks who decide music should be free won’t even bother with a bargin bin. That was my point.

[ivan_astikov]

Yeah, right. And 20 years ago folks were promised the 21st Century would have jet-packs, flying cars and a 20 hour working week. I think settling for free digital products is a fair compromise.

[Acsenray]

Because it was musicians who welched on those promises?

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@cosmosdan

right, there are legitimate ways to buys things cheaper without piracy. Those folks who decide music should be free won’t even bother with a bargin bin. That was my point.

Oh, that’s bullshit. There are plenty of people that think that music should be free that will and do pay for music. Even when it’s offered for free, plenty of people will still pay for it. Not everyone and not every time, granted, but you generalization is flat out wrong.

[cosmosdan]

@kanicbird

Jesus never prosecuted a thief, actually welcoming one into Paradise, and His example is to be our model. I believe that the thief is not the one to be blamed, but it was the world system that showed him the only way to make it is to steal, so I blame him not as he knew no other way.

Wow! I used to think that even though you were extreme you were at least sincere. Now I have doubts about that because of your rather casual manipulation of scripture to try and win an argument about piracy. There were two thieves beside JC. One mocked him and the other said what? He said, “we are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
He recognized his crime and Jesus innocence and in doing so repented. He asked Jesus for forgiveness. In this thread we have people trying to justify piracy.
Let’s also note that in Acts two people are killed for lying about some land they sold. I’m actually quite surprised at your posts in this thread. It seems like you don’t really care what the NT actually says but will pull out any passage and twist it around to make it work for you.

Digital downloads are not a physical product, but a virtual one. A CD, or tape or record is a physical product, many times with artwork or lyrics, something nice to put on the shelf to see. P2P digital downloads are also not a service of the artist, but of a fellow brother or sister freely offering their time, so no fee should be charged for that either. Ultimately we are all members of the same family, and ultimately members of the same body and one with each other, so it is sharing within the family, which you even said is OK IIRC.

Please don’t misrepresent what I said. From a purely ethical point of view any copying and sharing is objectionable. Even to a family member.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a physical product or a virtual one. It’s still a product that represents real work and real effort by someone else. It’s still a product they decided to sell rather than give away, so it remains unethical to take thier work and give it away without their approval. It’s a very basic and obvious principle.

Real people put their labor and money into the creation of a musical product so they can sell it. It’s their unique creation. How can you possibly justify people taking the product they created and offer for sale, and giving it away? If you buy a CD and your friend says " That’s awesome" then the honest thing to do is for them to buy a copy, or, if they can’t aford it , buy them one as a gift.

The author is God, he says take freely, the steward may or may not stand with God, but the owner has spoken.

You are really twisting things to try and be correct. If what counts is the condition of the heart and soul then the worker who labors and offers something for sale is doing okay. The person who takes the fruits of thier labor and gives it away even while they are being asked by the worker “Please don’t do that” are the ones who’s hearts are in the wrong place. We see music pirates complaining about the greed of the labels to justify their actions but isn’t it their own greed and selfishness that motivates them to take someone elses labor for free.

According to scriptures the donkey was taken without any indication the owner was notified, and a indication that he was not at the time. Just some brawny guys came to some hired help and said the Lord needs this donkey and took it. Think about that if some ‘thugs’, which you could not overpower, came to take your car.

Once again you’re manipulating the passage to fit your argument.

1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”

Not quite the same as your representation is it?

I think we’ve exhausted this subject and annoyed other posters with spirtual gymnastics. Time for a dismount.

[peledre]

There’s a battle going on. A battle of information.

On one hand, information wants to be expensive, because it can be incredibly valuable.

On the other hand, every day it’s getting easier and easier to freely distribute information to anyone who wants it.

My money is on the 2nd scenario winning out in the end.

[cosmosdan]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Oh, that’s bullshit. There are plenty of people that think that music should be free that will and do pay for music. Even when it’s offered for free, plenty of people will still pay for it. Not everyone and not every time, granted, but you generalization is flat out wrong.

You are correct. I used a generalization which is acceptable in debates. I was aware that not every single person who copies will never ever pay for music. In fact the pirates kinda depend on someone to buy a copy so they don’t have to.

The larger point is that the argument that CD prices are a rip off and that forces people to pirate is untrue. The idea that CD prices justifies piracy is also untrue.

I suspect a lot of people who can’t resist the temptation to pirate some music recognize that it is ethically not cool and also buy music.
It’s hard to legitimately and convincingly criticize the greed of record labels while saying. “I want it for free”

[cosmosdan]

@acsenray

Because it was musicians who welched on those promises?

you mean you didn’t see the brilliance of that argument?

[brickbacon]

@cosmosdan

Of course we build upon the foundation of those who came before us. It’s not the same thing at all and this is just one more example of bullshit arguments.

The only bullshit argument is that you pretend there is some clear ethical line wrt to uses and distribution of the work of others. Music was different in that regard, now it is not. I don’t see anybody crying tears for the people who never had that protection, and I personally won’t be crying tears for any musician who is too stupid to figure out how to profit in this environment.

@cosmosdan

btw, I’m not pretendig they are illogical. They are demonstratably and fairly obviously bullshit.

They are not bullshit. You just disagree with them because you assume certain creators have rights that they don’t have, or cannot take advantage of. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. Do the news aggregation websites (eg. The Huffington Post or The Drudge Report) owe money to the original reporters?

2. If I post a painting or photo on my website, do I owe money to the artist or photographer? Why can I legally make my wallpaper an image file of a famous painting without having to pay the painter, yet I can’t get a music file without paying the musician?

3. Why is it different if I post a transcript of Chris Rock’s comedy special, or tell one of his jokes, than when I sing a cover of an Eminem song?

4. Does Google owe money to all the creators of photos that come up on a Google image search?

5. If I tell all my friends the content of the latest David Sedaris book, or if I loan the book to them so they don’t have to buy it, have I done something wrong?

6. Do I owe my neighbor money if I decorate my house the same way her professional interior designer decorated hers?

@cosmosdan

If someone offers something for sale you can either buy it or not. To declare you are somehow entitled and justified in taking it without paying is really indefensible with any thing close to logic.

You are not “taking” anything. I doubt anyone here would be fine with you going in to bestbuy and taking a CD even if they are ok with downloading. Why? Because taking a physical object is theft, and deprives the owner of something tangible. File sharing does not do that. Musicians don’t deserve special protection just because they are upset that their free ride is ending. Particularly when the technology that reduced the scalability of music also allows them to be far more profitable if used correctly.

[Acsenray]

@brickbacon

1. Do the news aggregation websites (eg. The Huffington Post or The Drudge Report) owe money to the original reporters?

This is an unsettled legal question. Furthermore, if Congress explicitly enacts a law saying that they do owe money, then they do. Period.

2. If I post a painting or photo on my website, do I owe money to the artist or photographer?

You very well might. It’s not necessarily fair use.

Why can I legally make my wallpaper an image file of a famous painting without having to pay the painter, yet I can’t get a music file without paying the musician?

If there is a difference in the treatment between the two, it is based on the fact that a small reproduction of a painting posted on a website does not recreate the actual experience of viewing the painting, mostly because it’s pretty small. In the case of the music file, you are copying the entire work as well as the entire experience of enjoying it. In addition, you are damaging the market for actual sales. A person interest in buying a famous painting is not going to be satisfied with a small digital image of it, but a person interested in buying a sound recording very well would be satisfied with the unauthorized copy.

3. Why is it different if I post a transcript of Chris Rock’s comedy special, or tell one of his jokes, than when I sing a cover of an Eminem song?

Different from what? Posting a transcript of his comedy special might infringe his copyright interest in the script he created.

If you record and sell a cover of an Eminem song, you do owe royalties.

4. Does Google owe money to all the creators of photos that come up on a Google image search?

If they posted full-size reproductions of them, then yes they probably would. If all they’re doing is displaying tiny thumbnails for the purpose of helping people find the creators’ websites, then no.

5. If I tell all my friends the content of the latest David Sedaris book, or if I loan the book to them so they don’t have to buy it, have I done something wrong?

You haven’t don’t anything that is reserved exclusively to the copyright holder, so no.

6. Do I owe my neighbor money if I decorate my house the same way her professional interior designer decorated hers?

Interior design is not protected as an original and creative work of expression

Musicians don’t deserve special protection just because they are upset that their free ride is ending.

Free ride? Really? Nobody is making you listen to their music. Before there were recordings, people learned to play music themselves. You are still free to do that.