quote: | Originally posted by Adam420
I think, if someone really likes a certain track they hear in someone's set, they're more likely to buy it than they are to avoid buying it. It's simple, really. I hear a track I really like, and I want to have the full version (to most likely be able to play it myself, whether it be at a club, party or just in a mix I will be sharing as well). I deno't think the argument holds up that uploading mixes in any way damages potential sales of a track/record, especially if the mix is free to listen to/download in the first place. I think labels would only concern themselves with such matters if somebody is actually making money off their music without a license/royalty.
|
Well, yes and no. I agree DJs are probably going to be more likely to buy a track if they hear it in a mix shared online, but there's a reasonably large contingent of 'normal' music listeners who buy dance music just to listen to, including full-length versions from Beatport if that's the only way to get their favourite tune. If they can get that tune for free by downloading a demo mix with it in rather than buying a compilation with it in or downloading the full version, they will do.
Also, there are still some twats around who will lift a version out of a mix, edit it to be mixable and then play that rather than buying the original track... I'm sure it's rarer than some labels think though.
Bear in mind that DJs who charge people for copies of their demos don't really harm potential sales, it's just plain insulting.
All I'm really saying is I can identify with why some labels get angry about it (even if their logic is somewhat flawed) and I think it's important for DJs to appreciate this as well so that they can be sensible when sharing mixes.
___________________
Stu Cox | 

|