|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.54.45.248
In Reply to: RE: The verdict on Tomorrow's Modern Boxes posted by rbolaw on September 30, 2014 at 11:16:51
"keep as direct control as possible over distribution of their content (as are you, apparently)."
I wouldn't say that at all (about me), I'm all for wide distribution and a music industry promoting music and musicians. I'm not for unpaid usage such as file sharing and streaming services that pay so little as for it to be effectively the same, primarily because of what it means for the future of music.
Whether the future of music is downloads or streaming services I don't know, I'm simply concerned with whatever emerges being sustainable.
Dave
Follow Ups:
Fair enough, and it wasn't meant as a criticism, anyway. I'm more sympathetic to your position than you may realize. Musicians being paid nothing is not a healthy thing for the industry or for our culture, imo. But exactly how and by whom they will be paid is at stake in the developments going on right now. Surely Thom Yorke and the Berlin Philharmonic want wide distribution too, and they felt they needed to take more active control of the process to get it. I don't know if they're right or if you agree.
The only area where we disagree is in your characterization of file sharing as "unpaid usage". Those people are paying plenty for that music, they just aren't paying (in most cases) the musicians who made it, or are paying them very little. Cold comfort for you right now, it's true, but an important distinction for the future, I think.
I didn't take it as criticism and we are in agreement about most of that. I think what the Berlin Philharmonic is doing is great, I find the Thom Yorke thing less exciting/promising, but I'd it works for him then great and no harm done (as opposed to the record they gave away).
"The only area where we disagree is in your characterization of file sharing as "unpaid usage".
Yes we disagree because what I'm talking about is payment to the creators/owners of course. I'm not concerned about the mechanism by which it happens, but when it doesn't cost anyone any more money to listen to 100 albums/songs than to listen to none, and therefore no money is going to musicians, that's a problem. I doubt we actually disagree on that point, however.
Dave
We may not disagree. A healthy industry must: (1) create value, (2) sell its product in a form that consumers value most highly, so they will be willing to pay as much as possible for it, and (3) allocate revenues in a way that insures that those who can create value have an incentive to keep doing so. Society can and should subsidize the performing arts imo, but that doesn't reduce the importance of these three principles.
When you say consumers shouldn't pay the same to listen to one song or 100, you raise an important and complicated issue we won't resolve here, i.e., how should consumers pay for music. But I stand by principle no. 2 above in that context.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: