Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dragon
heres my view
with a physical object u either take it on don't
but with digital content the difference is instead of TAKEING the item you making a duplicate therefore have never actally stolen the item.
heres a hypertical (yeah i know its not possible... YET)
instead of stealing the ROLEX i point some gadet at it and PING... i have an identical rolex yet the original is still in the shop did i just steal the rolex?
another thing is i disagree with copyright as 2 people can have the same idea.
|
OK. Look at it this way. Imagine you design watches for a living. You spend months designing and building a watch, that is so amazingly different to everyone else. You have spend thousands of pounds developing it. You decide to build and market it yourself, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of borrowed money in the process.
Now, some git decides to copy it. He has spent nothing developing the watch, and the factories he uses are sweatshops in some small Indian village, so his costs are a small fraction of yours, and he can sell an exact duplicate of your watch for 95% less and still make a profit. You lose trade. You go bankrupt, but still have hundreds of thousands of pounds of money to pay back.
That's why we need copyright laws. To protect innovators.
Quote:
|
artists/bands should be producing this work for the love of the music not to make $$$ imo the artists should make their music avalable for download cheaply and cut the record co out of the loop completly as all record/movie companies are is money grabing pure and simple.
|
You can set up a band for next to nothing. You could probably fully kit out an average band (2 Guitarists, 1 Keyboard Player, 1 Drummer and 1 Singer) for around £3000 to £4000. This would get you a band that could play live gigs.
Now, add recording studio time (which can be £100s an hour) for recording an album. Assuming the bands where distributing online, you can also add ISP costs (which can get quite expensive as you would need a commercial hosting package, and if you have 2000 people download an MP3, that will consume an awful lot of bandwidth and extra bandwidth costs money). That would probably be covered by the download fees charged to listeners.
The problem comes when a band's music doesn't sell well. They still have the fixed costs (studio time etc), but their takings from downloads may not cover those. What record companies have done in the past is to cover these losses with the profits from other bands. This, incidentally, is how funding works in all media industries. For instance, in Hollywood, they may spend £70 or £80 million on a Blockbuster movie, but that may generate £500m to £1bn in profits, which can then be spent on filming 50 to 100 smaller films. BTW, before you say Hollywood doesn't do this, it does. Hollywood produces anywhere up to 150 movies a week, and a small percentage of these are hits.
In today's increasingly commercial music industry, there are also the marketing costs, and video cost, which also need to be covered from somewhere.
In short, we do need record companies..