Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Trashy
The only inevitability is the eventual transformation or elimination of the middleman. Bands and film producers can now handle production and distribution either by themselves or through third-party companies. Authors are producing free audio versions of books, and then still hitting the NY Times Bestseller list when it comes out in print, all without major publishing house backing. This does not require the giving up of copyright. Neither does it require teams of lawyers hounding citizens.
The creators, all of them and not just a select few chosen by existing power-brokers, can make more money per creation than ever before. They don't get the up-front money loan, but they make a lot more in the long run. It's a win-win.
|
I wish we'd just gotten to this point much sooner in this thread.
I (and I'm pretty sure, Bob) have never argued "for" the RIAA. Fuck 'em. But, the artists that were stupid enough to sign contracts with RIAA-backed labels, knowingly, signed contracts with companies that licensed their music under licenses which were not public-domain.
Unfortunately, that means that we can't consider RIAA-backed music public-domain, no matter how much we, or the artists, wish it were.
I'm happy to support independent artists, but if an artist wants to solely create digital content, and not support their act with touring or merchandise, they have the right to try to make a living in that fashion.
If KATG decides that they want to sell their shows for $0.10 a piece, under a restrictive license, they have that right.
I
don't have some inherent right to circumvent their desire. I can opt-in, or say fuck'em.
No one is against file sharing, they are against
piracy.
There's a difference.