>So music should be free unless the musician
>plays it live.

Digital media. All digital media should be free to receive, copy, and use.

>The composer (who may not be the musician)
>deserves no compensation other than an hourly
>wage for the time it took him or her to compose
>the song,

Yes.

>and if he or she wants additional money, they
>should either write more songs or go lay bricks
>for a living.

A little harsh, "laying bricks," but yes. They could teach, or build houses, or be a baker, something to meet people's needs. I, myself, would like to be a welder.

>If a musician gets sick and can't play music, too bad
>for him or her -- no new performances means no
>revenue.

Correct. The "Send donation" link made available on all digital media would've allowed the musician to earn revenue beyond live performances, but it would've come from donations and giving, not demand.

>What you've done in the past is meaningless,
>it's what have you done for me lately that pays the bills.

In such a society, there wouldn't be so burdensome bills as there are today. Since everybody is focusing on the needs of other people, in meeting their daily needs, and making sure people have something to eat a place to live warm clothes, the other stuff we get to do would then be "gravy" on top of that.

When they were sick there would be people who take care of the sick. It would be missions in ministries for people who want to do this to help others. That would be their "welding".

>Extending this analogy, perhaps there should be no
>need for banks. I should only be compensated
>for exactly what my needs for today are, so there's no
>need to put any money aside for anything in the
>future.

The system can't just be described as a response to instance examples. Here you mention one facet, and it's a true one because in the society I describe it's not just money based, but is production based, tangible goods, tangible needs by people being met. But there have to be many components working in concert, people being uneducated from capitalistic belief systems, and onto a new model that places people's welfare as top priority, above money. We do things for other people, looking to meet their needs so they don't go without.

When the society is doing this, a tremendous surplus quickly arises and a balance of need and want is created, allowing people to pursue their desired endeavors.

In addition, in such a society operating under The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would like to have them do unto you), it would be the model Jesus Christ as described. And if we follow that model ascribing it to Him, then God Himself provides for all of our needs (as He does today truthfully).

He make our animals give birth properly, our crops grow without insects/pests, our seasons would be gentle, our needs would be met, and everything would flow from Him, to use, and back to Him. I believe this will be the way of society when He returns. I believe it is also the society that originally existed in the garden of Eden, without requisite labor, but also with a close relationship with God. I believe The Lord's prayer puts us on this path today "...on Earth as it is in Heaven..." I believe the reason we have the system in place we have is because the enemy is operating in this world and enticing people away from God onto sinful paths, and some of those are simply in the debt-/demand-based system of economy we have in place. It is contrary to the teachings of Christ, and all people everywhere are forced into it.

>Your solution of getting paid once and giving it away
>for free after that doesn't work in the real world,

True. But only because of the system we already have operating in place.

>nor would it be a mechanism many people would
>consider to be reasonable.

True. But only because the people have been educated by everything throughout their entire lives that this is the only way. It isn't. :-) Ecuador is proving that today by real example (still some issues to sort out).

>What's wrong with paying for the privilege of the
>use of someone's labor, whether you are the only one
>paying for it (as in the case of the person who funded
>the development) or one of many (those people that use
>the software)?
>
>Doug

Absolutely nothing. I encourage it. That's what the "Donate" link is for. Give the author or performer of the digital content $200,000 if you're so inclined (or $19.95). :-)

What is wrong is keeping that product away from people who would choose not to pay for it when it costs them or you NOTHING to get a copy. Were it free, they would have gain, benefit, and those desiring to pay for it would do so. But still everybody gains -- even you in your giving.

What we need is a www.DonateEasyPeasy.com website where people can register their copyleft / Share Alike digital content and be assigned a number. People go to that site via direct links, or they can type in the number directly themselves, and donate whatever amount they want to. They can also browse other works in a standard "market or forum" to find new / popular things. All of it is free, but all can be donated to.

I believe $1 or lower donations made easy to do would be catching on very quickly. Each time I use GIMP or Blender to do something really awesome I wouldn't mind hitting the $1 link button. I might do it five times a year.

And in this type of model, everybody is giving, nothing is being demanded. It is all out-flowing naturally -- me to you, you to me, through appreciation, respect, love and generosity. I give my product away and you, if you choose, give me a donation. And if not, then you still have received and gained. There is no system of debt. There is only gain. Everything that then exists ... exists. And a type of bartering system would be employed to handle trade, negotiation, etc.

There's a lot to this model. Far more than a UT post would allow (or ten). :-)