|
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
i think it is not up to the patrons to adapt, but the artist.
the companies that give them the advances are not the same entity
people are allowed to profit, and i am drunkish so i'll argue more tomorrow.
like in any other area in life, if you don't break the law you have no problems.
most of the music we enjoy , the artist runs the label and therefore is losing out. Fuck celine in the ass. |
I don't agree with your first statement. For the sake of argument, let's make it clear that I am talking about music industry as a whole, and that whole is 99.9% Sony BMG and Warner and whatnot.
They are the ones doing the lobbying here, not Archipel and Thinner.
I believe it is up to BOTH the labels and the artists to adapt.
Any artist will tell you that what he/she wants most is to have his/her music heard (unless they are in it for the money). But they still have to eat.
However, it has been shown that artists are willing to change and adapt, whether it is new business models (Archipel sells 320 and vinyl and then distributes VBR ; Unfoundsound is free and uses that publicity to promote Founsound ; etc, etc) or whether it is the new model of publicity-advert like NIN and Radiohead.
However, the big labels are not willing to change, and that is a problem. It is also up to them to change.
They are obviously a company, and have a right to profit, but this is not the argument. The argument is that their business model is failing. It sucks. They will die in the long run. They use their political weight to lobby for laws that will change nothing (come on, let's be serious, piracy is here to stay) instead of contributing new ideas, like a serious business should do.
As I said, a flat rate for the whole back catalogue. I have never heard someone against it. I know I would totally pay.
It already exists for radio, restaurants, etc, which pay a certain amount to some organisation.
As for the labels we enjoy, they are the .01% of the music industry, and are not what this thread is about
|