Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
No. They should be allowed to give away anything new that they make, but the old stuff is still for sale in retail by the label so they should not be allowed to give fans permission to download that for free.
|
so you want the label to have more power then the contract grants them.
going back to the dvd example
look at the tv show sarah conner the terminitor chronicles
the tv show airs on fox, is sold on itunes per episode and sold on dvd by warner bros home.
Three different distribution companies who all pay C2 for the licienced right to distribute in their channel.
What you are saying is the equivelent to allowing fox to sue, itunes and warner bros home for copyright infringement because they marketed the show first.
Those streams compete against each other
Having an artist "legalize" the bit torrent distribution channel by giving permission is exactly the same as C2 legalizing the DVD distribution channel by using a competing company.
Quote:
The modern era does allow them to test the market and see what happens before they put a big launch on an artist. Another tactic they use is having an artist guest on an established artists record and see what kind of reaction they get.
Finding the failed bands would not be easy because many of them are signed, record and never get released then are cut from the contract and nobody ever hears of them.
Here is one example I know of for sure from my past. The band was a local Portland band named Hazel. They had a couple of records out on a small indy label and were starting to build up a fan base. Elecktra records signs them. They get an 800K advance. They go into the studio and record the album. The studio cost ran in the area of about 75K. They hand the record into the label and the label hated it. They wanted a few more songs so the label pays for them to go back and record a few more songs and they don't like those either. This band was kind of a alt.rock band and clearly the label thought they could mold them into something more pop. After much arguing the the label dropped them. The label agreed to let them keep the record and do with it as they pleased. As per the contract they had to pay back 50% of the advance. So the label spent around 475K on them in advance and recording costs and never earned a penny.
|
but that doesn't happen any more, contract have a buy out earlier
record companies test market songs at the single level using itunes.
so your talking about much smaller advances, and much less recording time spent, before the work get tested.
That the point i am making, and you are ignoring. The downside risk is getting smaller and smaller for the record company.
Quote:
|
you cant be naive enough to think that most people will download an album online then listen to it and say, "oh, the quality isn't as good as the CD so I will go buy the CD." There is money to be made yes, but it is a give and take. The label provided the means to make this music so they should be allowed to have a say in how it is marketed and sold. If there is that much money to be made, the labels and the artists will find a common ground and produce the content.
|
please if the fox could find a way to force C2 to licience DVD sales to their distribution arm, so the could make the most money they would do it.
Your arguement falls into the same catagory, fox could say they spent millions branding and building an audience for the show with their tv spots. Just like the record companies in your example they could re run the shows on fox on demand. Say that DVD sales reduce their profits from the reruns and attempt to stop them is just as legitimate as your record studio example.
The record companies are not entitled to maximize profits by stopping other licienced (by the artist giving permission) competitive streams.
Quote:
|
My original statement still stands. If the satisfy their contract (part of which allows the labels to retain retail rights to their old CDs) they should be allowed to give away any NEW music or content they create. If they tell the fans to just download the old stuff from a torrent site they are harming the potential sales that the label has a right to and they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
|
the record company is not Entitled to zero competition from competing technological distributions just like fox is not entitled to zero competition from dvd sales.