Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua
Agree - this is where they should target first and foremost. Instead it looks like Big Brother tactics to catch a pixel, which given the millions with access to the webis hardly looking at the bigger picture.
|
Therein lies the problem Angua. The big picture
is "the millions with access to the web" and the levels of access and exposure to supposedly "free" material which they can avail of just because somebody, somewhere thinks they are doing an artist a "favour" by making their material available for free without asking the artist if they'd like them to do that "favour".
Maggy, "websites about art,music,films,comics,photography,books,blogs and such" which give away copyright material where they have no right or express permission to do so are not "fans", they are part of the problem whether they do it for profit / personal gain or not.
Fans buy things to support the creative endeavours of those artists they support. This is exactly what Imogen is saying. Effectively her fans are being denied access to her because the illegal free distribution of her recorded material has had an adverse impact on finances which she ordinarily might use to afford them access by way of touring etc.
It is a vicious circle but the bottom line is that if someone is going to promote an artist as a fan in the true sense then they should seek their permission to do so rather than elect to share material at their own volition.
Most artists I know would
gladly interact with their fans on that basis and would be only too willing to engage them in the promotion / distribution of select materials.
We cannot, however, have a "fan" exemption when it come to infringement.