Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. There will always be exceptions to the rule. My point is this: Show me one act that has done a worldwide stadium tour and sold millions of concert tickets based simply on giving away their music online and promoting themselves online? Yes, you can make money promoting yourself online and yes you can get views and yes you can find success, but at this moment it has a sort of ceiling to it. Maybe that will change.
|
who says you have too, if you don't have to give away 90% of the money, you can be 1/10 as big and make the same money.
That the point. oh and by the way
i already did
maria digby
Quote:
|
No you should be allowed to walk away whenever you want. Again, my point is not that bands shouldn't be allowed to promote themselves. My point is that people seem to think that the internet is everything when it comes to music and that you can make a ton of money and become a rock star just off the internet. I understand there are some acts that have made it without record label support, but if you choose to go the major label route then after the major label helps make you famous and you use that fame to then bite the hand that fed you, don't be shocked if the major label is not happy.
|
but the point is that the record label is suing a radio head fan for sharing radio head music claiming he had no authorization and owes them $500 buck a song and radio head is testifying that they want their fans to share their music. how the fuck is that biting the hand that fed them. Should they keep quiet and let their fans get screwed.
Quote:
|
Should there be a limit on how much a label can get from its investment? To me it is all about the contract. If you sign a 5 record deal at the end of that deal you should be allowed to walk away if you want. And if that means you are now going to give away your albums for free online, so be it. Would it be better for the labels to just embrace the technology instead of fighting it? Maybe. My defense of them is simple. They feel as if they should be allowed to defend their business model. If that means that they eventually put themselves out of business because of it, so be it. I too think they should be allowed to defend it and if that means trying to stop developing technologies that they feel are robbing their business than so be it. If, in the end, it is decided by the legal system that those technologies are not causing harm to the record labels then so be it.
|
and the bands should have a right to stand up and say we want the technology to exist. we are ok with our fans sharing the music. you are lying when you claim they did not have any authorization to share the music.
Quote:
Yes, they have the skill. For sure. Without that they would have nothing to offer. You can even argue that acts like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson have a talent. No they can't sing very well and they don't write their own music, but they look good, are good performers and know how to put on a show and that ability isn't really given to them. You either have that charisma or not. that said, Britney Spears without a multi million dollar ad campaign, a hot video on MTV and a huge push by the label is just another good looking girl singing for tips at a local bar or working as a back-up dance for someone else.
As for the old label retaining the catalog that is true in most cases. A few artists own their masters, but most do not, but sales of old albums are not nearly what sales of new albums are. If a popular band gets new fans some of these fans might go back and buy the older records, but realistically in today's world they will just download them from a torrent site. That back catalog is only really a profitable machine if they have some access to the publishing so they can license it to things like movies and TV shows and commercials and video games etc. Again, there are acts that sell a lot of old records, but many do not.
|
doesn't matter that difference is enough to discredit your anology that is why i mentioned it. the fact that they only make money liciencing it to tv shows and commercials still represents the artist competing against themselves for that revenue stream.
Quote:
I said myself that most artists don't care if their stuff is traded/stolen/downloaded or whatever. This is why most of them don't speak out about it. Some of them don't like it, but most don't care. As long as their records get out into the public they are happy because they know most of their money will come from touring, radio play and publishing.
My point with the eventual comment was that you made them out to be some type of portal where people can go and find these indy/internet only acts and as a way of promoting them. I was pointing out that while they may do that, they also bank heavily on the name recognition of very famous acts so they too are using the work of the big labels who helped make these famous acts to get visitors to the site.
|
well i fall into the new breed of music consumers who find music using the torrents
i happen to live in canada where we have a piracy tax and the supreme court has recognized that cede tax represents the consideration in a standard contract (offer acceptance and consideration) so my actions are in fact licienced.
Right now that piracy tax screws independent musicans because if they buy a cd to record their own music to sell at the local concert halls they have to pay a tax that goes to the CRIA to compensate establish studio artist like britney spears.
I don't listen to the radio, i don't watch mtv i simply download a song listen to it and toss it if i don't like it.
Torrents are my radio.