Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
And the record company put those millions into them up front with no guarantee of any payback. If the band failed and doesn't sell any records the record label doesn't get that money back and they eat the loss. Again, nobody forces anyone to sign a record deal. If you want to be a huge rock star and you want to use the multi-million dollar marketing machine they have you are free to do so and you know what you are getting into. If you don't want to, you don't have to.
Quote:
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.
|
You are correct... as long as they are not under contract with the record label. If they leave the label, as Radiohead did, they can and should be allowed do to whatever they want with their new music. If that means give it away for free, so be it. If it means selling CD's for $100 each, that is fine too.
When I have a problem with it is when the record label puts up the money to pay for the recording, promotion and distribution of the album then the band just tells people to download it for free and not pay. They are knowingly trying to cut the label out by doing that. If they want to give it away for free they shouldn't be taking the advances they get and letting the label pick up the check on the recording, distribution and promotion costs. Yes, I know they have to pay that money back to the label, but the label puts the money up in advance. If the album/band fails the label loses that money. It is no different than investing in a business. If the business succeeds you get your money back plus profit. If the business fails you may lose everything you have put into it.
Quote:
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.
|
Maybe my analogy software isn't correct. In the end this is how I see it playing out in some cases. A label helps an act become hugely famous and successful. The act records 4-5 albums for the label and all is fine. The act then leaves the label at the end of the contract and starts giving away its new music online. No problem. If they want to give away their new stuff, so be it. The act owns the publishing to all their music so the label gets little or nothing from radio play and licensing of the older songs. This leaves the label with the option of still selling the older records. That is fine. That is the deal. To me it undermines the label when the artist then goes out and encourages people to download all of their stuff. The original agreement was they (the label) gets to sell the old records, but the band is undermining that by encouraging fans to just download them. I know the label has already profited from the sales of the records, but the agreement is they still get to sell the old stuff and they should be allowed to defend that agreement if they want to.
Quote:
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.
|
Again, I say you are the exception. The average person discovers new music by switching the radio station. Maybe in 5-10 years that will change, but for now that is just how it is. It is easy for you, but I know this much, I know a lot of people who listen to music some even consider themselves real fans of music and you are the only person I have heard of doing this. Maybe you are part of a growing trend, but you are still an exception to the rule.