Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
it's all a crock of shit.
if you are a visual artist, you make a painting. you sell the painting at a gallery for, let's say $1,000. The gallery will take 50% to cover costs of showing, advertising, and promoting your work. That leaves you $500. In ten years, your work is now valued more and paintings sell for $10,000. The old art you made and sold for $1,000 is being re-sold by the original buyer for $1,000,000. You see NONE of that money. The art gets sold again and again and again, and the creator sees NONE of that money.
Band writes songs. Band records songs. Band gets record deal. Band releases an album. They make no money off album sales because their advance has to be covered. the people who buy a CD make a digital file,a nd shae it. Now dozens more people know of your band and music, which means more people will likely go to your live shows which is where you actually make money as a band (selling merch, part of gate receipts, etc.)
The only people who lose money off of digital piracy are the record labels who are already ripping off the artist. big fucking deal. Bands with no record deal who had two hits back in 1980 can keep touring indefinitely, making money for themselves and playing their music, and fuck the record label.
|
this argument is full of logical holes but since i'm on a short break i only have time to ask:
if the labels are "already ripping off the artist", then you're just another label, except you give the artist zero, instead of little?
nice
you also realize that if you cut down on label profits that incentivizes labels to further "rip off" (as you say) artists, yes?
i mean there's no social upside to your argument. none.
and again i should repeat im not here for the moral condemnation of individuals. everyone is flawed and succumbs to temptation on occasion. i'm not asking for moral perfection. i'm only here to refute shitty ideas.
and if my ideas are also shitty please have at them