|
|
Posted by Steve Guidry on 11/04/05 17:45
It's not free at all. Advertisers pay dearly for the music you hear. And
if they didn't, you'd be paying for it directly.
Steve
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|