Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Maybe she will. Maybe she won't. Again, my point is that U2 benefited from millions in promotion from Island records. It is going to be very difficult for the internet to match that type of ad machine.
|
but U2 actually pays for that millions of promotion out of their share of the album sales. When a new band comes up thru the ranks island records mails the U2 fans to tell them about, and cross promotes those new bands as the under card to U2 concerts. The reality is that in the future, bands like U2 will sell that "promotion" to the smaller bands directly. The only difference it will be on a CPA bases not you give up 90% strong arm bases.
Quote:
|
See to me it is a slippery slope. For me a record label deal is a partnership. It is the artist that creates the music, but they have a partnership deal with the label to sell it. If the artist gives the okay to give the music away and the label doesn't should they still be able to?
|
why not, the copyright is owned by the artist, it only licienced for distribution thru the normal channel to the record company. The bit torrent distribution is just another distribution channel that the record company doesn't want to use, but would benefit the artist if it was used.
They should have a right to licience it to that distribution channel if they want too.
Quote:
|
I a way I still think my consulting business thought holds some water. My thought is that the owner of the business helped that person get to a level where they could then walk away and take many of the clients with them. Sure the business still has other clients and may be able to profit on the work that person had done for them in the past by reselling it, but what if that work was now available for free online? That business might not be the best analogy but look at it like it is a software company. The company helps a programmer get enough notoriety that they can walk away and work on their own and take many of the companies clients with them. They still have the software that the programmer made for them to sell, but what if the programmer then told everyone, "Just go here and download it for free?" Now you could argue the programmer is hurting the company.
|
but the point for you analogy to be vaild it would have to be software code that was written by the programmer himself. it licienced for sale in retail stores, but he then decides to open source it. The original company made a profit from the term of the contract and now all the money they are getting is gravy.
The company can adapt sell support for the software, compete because they have all the experience in previously supporting it. or it can bitch about it.
Quote:
|
While you may not spend a lot of time doing this, I would still venture to guess you spend more time than most. As I have argued before for most music is something of convenience so they listen it he car or at work or while doing the dishes. They don't put a lot of thought into seeking out new bands. Maybe I am dead wrong about this, but I think the masses don't care enough about music to look any further than their radio dial.
|
but the point is that discovering music for me is as simple as turning a switch on a radio. Every moring i have gigs of new music to listen too, i sync my zune, android phone, with that days collection and play brand new music.
i basically have a radio station of music, matching my musical tastes playing commercial free. If i like a song i keep it, if not it good, i delete it it disappears from the list and when i sync back up to my computer it disappears from the folder too.