Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
And I point out that all of them (except for maybe that nerd rock guy, are all on major labels now. They used the internet to get signed to a major label. If their internet success was so fantastic why not just stay there.
|
and again you are drawing an a +b = g conclusion
the examples i have given are those that publically available success stories.
that represent 1/10 of 1 percent of the "successes" specifically because you don't have to get anywhere near the exposure to eclipse the success of a major label push when you don't have to give away 97% (90/10 + cost comming out your end) of the money from your sales.
btw it two examples
for every 1 artist that make it thru the record system, 347 make lose money (record companies number used to justify the 90/10 screw job)
Quote:
My complaint has never been with artists who decide when their contracts are up to go their own way and dsitribute their music however they see fit. I actually give Radiohead credit. They could have gotten tens of millions in advance money from any number of record labels, but they decided they wanted to be independent. That is cool and it take courage.
All I have pointed out in the past is that these types of people are not good examples of the internet allowing success to happen for music acts. These acts are world famous. It is fame their earned during their time with the major labels when millions of dollars and enormous staffs of people were used to get them exposure. They now have that big name and they can capitalize on it if they want. They paid for it, if they want to go their own way, so be it. But you can't compare Radiohead to someone singing cover tunes on Youtube. One is a world wide famous band and the other is someone with some Youtube videos. The playing field is not fair nor is it balanced. Head to head Radiohead is going to destroy that person in downloads and no amount of keyword stuffing or seo will change that.
|
when i praised radio head for agreeing to testify on behalf of the college student accused of file sharing authorizing the behavor
you argued against it, with not fair to the label bullshit
and how they owed the label for their success and cutting the value of the catalog was unfair
but the contract allowed them to do that
are you reversing your statement
Quote:
|
If you sign a contact you should have to stick to it. I have said it a million times and I will say it again and again and again and again. If it is a bad contract for either party, that is their fault. They entered that contract of their own free will, they have to deal with it.
|
but changing the laws to deal with the new technology does change the contract for the record companies. They signed a contract which gave their artist gifting rights before such rights could authorize file sharing.
Quote:
There have been big names that have come out against file share. Kid Rock is one, Sheryl Crow is another. When the Red Hot Chili Peppers put out their last album Flea mad a statement saying how he was pissed off that the album was online and being illegally downloaded before it was even for sale. The very next day he went on MTV and said he mis-spoke and the doesn't care, feel free to download it. Why did he say that? Not because he was worried about development hell, because he didn't want backlash from the fans. There are a ton of artists who don't care one way or the other.
If an artist wants to use the new technology to market themselves, I don't care. All I want is for those who don't want their stuff downloaded in mass by anyone who wants it to have the ability to stop that.
|
but your talking about putting restrictions that would eliminate all the fair use benefits of the technology
how many people do you think would have bought a vcr if you could never know if it would take your favorite show because the content producers would have to give permission before the recording could happen.
if those people had not bought the machine, the home viewing market would never exist (biggest money maker for the movie industry).
kill the traffic generated from the fair use uses and you kill the marketing benefit of the technology too.