Posted by kashe on 11/04/05 05:09

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.
>

[Back to original message]