|
|
Posted by AnthonyR on 11/04/05 05:20
<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:i2rlm15lqqm08hs2s74t2bhpspurih99l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:34:52 GMT, "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"bo peep" <cowartmisc1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1131042576.600104.314230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> <<you don't need the lost income anyway>>
>>>
>>> There is a fatal flaw in your logic...
>>>
>>> For any given combination of author and product and market at a point
>>> in time, there is some number of free accesses to that product that
>>> would eventually maximize the author's income from that work. However,
>>> *you* simply don't have the right to select, on behalf of the author,
>>> without his permission, the number of those free accesses to be
>>> allowed. The author is not obliged to derive maximum income from the
>>> product, nor is he even obliged to derive any income at all from the
>>> product. Even if we disregard the financial consequences, it is simply
>>> none of your business.
>>>
>>> John Cowart
>>>
>>
>>Yes, And I agree, no one but the author has the right, however using music
>>as an example...
>>In the 70's, 80's, 90's heck even today....
>>The Radio stations gave us "Free Access" to music and still do, this
>>sharing
>>is what promoted the music
>>and created the demand to go out and buy the record in the first place.
>
> In general, whatever the radio station did was likely with the
> permission of the copyright holder. They'd be in deep shit if they
> just went out, bought an album and started airplay without doing so.
> Even if it ended up that the copyright holder in fact paid the station
> for airplay, rather than the reverse.
>
>
>>
>>Artists need to remember that without some amount of free sharing,
>>popularity doesn't go up.
>>So in a way, this leakage, let's say, helps the artist to a degree.
>>
>>But they will always want as you say "Maximum Income" so they don't see it
>>that way.
>>
>>I wonder if the roles were reversed how happy artists would be?
>>Say if they had to pay each time their music was played on the radio?
>>Pay to promote it on the internet. LOL Pay people to download it and give
>>them incentive to listen to it.
>>Hoping enough people would like it to cause a demand enough to start
>>selling
>>copies.
>>
>>Seems like everyone is never satisfied, they benefit from free publicity
>>but
>>also want to complain they don't
>>get paid for every single person listening. Seems to me, if a work of art
>>is
>>good enough, the artist can still become a millionaire
>>in today's current environment. This should give them incentive to just
>>try
>>and make better music rather than thinking because they didn't sell enough
>>copies, then people are stealing them instead.
>>
>>If the *Product* is truly great, they will sell and make tons of money, if
>>not, let them try harder next time.
>>It's a capitalistic economy, right?
>>
>>AnthonyR.
>>
>
And there are lots of stations doing just that, and occasionally they get
sued of it.
I heard of two cases personally but that is commercial air play and
sometimes the stations
assume the artists won't notice or will be happy to hear their music.
I guess each artist has to keep their ears open. :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|