[anoncowherd]

> Do you really think these companies are just going to get frustrated, pack up their toys and go home?

As I said, if the producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then they'll stop producing music. See, that would actually be the point where they'll just throw in the towel. If everyone thought that they're somehow entitled to receiving music for free, like the guy I responded to, then the only music you could get would be the musical equivalent of open-source.

> It's the same reason I don't buy into these "starving artist" sob stories: no one can escape market forces.

Oh believe me, I'm all for market forces. I'm not saying musicians should be entitled to making a living through music either.

> The fact of the matter is, that business landscape is extremely competitive and typically requires a large initial investment. It's always been this way. The one force that seems to be an equalizer is technology in general getting cheaper and cheaper, NOT the protectionism known as copyright.

Note that you're actually talking about business there. So am I.

I don't even support IP enforcement or patents etc, I'm just saying that if no one takes music producers up on their offer of voluntary exchanges of music for money, then all those who are producing it to make money will simply stop.

[spacelizard]

When the listener isn't paying, there will always be someone else to foot the bill: the artist. This is already happening on a wide scale. You forget the primary function of a music production company is to act as a bank for the artist, they'll sign a contract with anyone who is willing to re-pay a loan. The point I was making is that it's not things like Grooveshark discouraging those practices, it's cheap technology which has made it more cost-effective for artists to just avoid production companies all together.

And this is a GOOD thing. We don't need them. Those companies filled a needed economic role before when cost-effective recording and distribution was a problem, but it's not anymore. Keeping them around is just encouraging economic abuse, i.e. rent-seeking in the form of royalties and licensing fees.

[anoncowherd]

> When the listener isn't paying, there will always be someone else to foot the bill: the artist.

Yep, it's possible his music is just not good enough, and that he should pursue other ways of making a living. Market forces and all.

> You forget the primary function of a music production company is to act as a bank for the artist, they'll sign a contract with anyone who is willing to re-pay a loan

Well, I'm not sure it's that simple. They're expecting a return on their investment. If a new artist signs up and takes on a $1M "loan", but then proceeds to sell zero records, how will the loan get paid back?

> The point I was making is that it's not things like Grooveshark discouraging those practices, it's cheap technology which has made it more cost-effective for artists to just avoid production companies all together.

Sure, it's never been cheaper to make and sell music online. That's fine, but I was talking about the business side of things, where music producers really do expect/hope people to pay for it, because otherwise they wouldn't be putting it up for sale.

It's quite effortless to by-pass paying for music, but that doesn't mean the music you're happily downloading for free was meant to be free.