|
|
|
|
|
|
by spacelizard
4659 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.