Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Hang on, it seems to me that the players that made money out of the media and the playback equipment overlap with, but certainly don't make up the copyright holders/labels. Sure, Sony, Philips et al. have/had their content branches, but generally, the labels that really lose out on copyright infringement are not part of the media and playback producing industry? Or are you saying that the big guns didn't give a hoot about the losses of the minor players because they were getting their money anyway?
|
More or less - however they eased the pain of the losses suffered by the "minor players" by buying them out in their droves. Suddenly indie labels and publishers were wealthy beyond their wildest dreams but their "kewl" factor was dead in the water once anyone looked at the heraldy (the remaining 50% of Creation records sold to Sony for $30m by way of just one example).
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
(Incidentally, bakc in the 80s Holland introduced a levy on blank media to recoup some of the lost sales, which I thought was a really good idea)
|
Yes, this is still in place until 2010/11 as far as I'm aware - it constitutes a small "offset" but the move to harddrive based devices has all but abolished any benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Yes, I do agree there, but I'm also a big fan of the try before you buy concept. It's good to see services like Spotify spring up that allow you to do so legally, because the 'buy in order to try' business model really is outdated imo.
|
I agree.
Spotify, whilst good, still needs to prove its worth from a musicians point of view.
Whilst the potential is ENORMOUS the revenue streams generated are of little or no consequence and that needs to change. Currently those organizations charged with negotiating and collecting such things are not keen to progress the debate because they have realized that their doing so is the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas.
I'd be happy to elaborate further by pm should you wish to do so.