Comment Re:Good for her.. (Score 1) 272
I'm not suggesting that you should feel sorry for anyone. I was simply pointing out that they are actually representing interests far different from (in fact, directly opposed to) the ones they would have the newsmedia believe they are championing.
Note also that following the Metallica case, there was a lot of scrambling around on the corporate side of the music industry to make sure it couldn't happen again. (*ahem* work-for-hire *ahem*)
The problem here is that nobody 'throws away' the rights to their songs when dealing with the major labels as you suggest -- they have no option but to hand them over from the beginning. It simply isn't the case that anyone chooses to fork over their ownership rights in exchange for a bit of extra cash; unlike in most other publishing industries, that choice doesn't exist, and under the current model, the big-five have had such a chokehold over distribution that there simply hasn't been much anyone could do about it. But now there is something that can be done about it, and that is to explore the new distribution methods that are opening up, which many artists are beginning to do and many are coming out in support of online distribution and peer-to-peer trading precisely because it can benefit both the artists and the consumers, both of whom have been bullied and abused by the traditional recording industry cartel. Metallica on the other hand has a vested interest in upholding convention, and therefore their efforts can not be construed as being representative of musicians as a whole.
Oh, and regarding the musician/coke thing -- I wasn't aware that we were suddenly living inside an 80s rock video. Silly me.
Note also that following the Metallica case, there was a lot of scrambling around on the corporate side of the music industry to make sure it couldn't happen again. (*ahem* work-for-hire *ahem*)
The problem here is that nobody 'throws away' the rights to their songs when dealing with the major labels as you suggest -- they have no option but to hand them over from the beginning. It simply isn't the case that anyone chooses to fork over their ownership rights in exchange for a bit of extra cash; unlike in most other publishing industries, that choice doesn't exist, and under the current model, the big-five have had such a chokehold over distribution that there simply hasn't been much anyone could do about it. But now there is something that can be done about it, and that is to explore the new distribution methods that are opening up, which many artists are beginning to do and many are coming out in support of online distribution and peer-to-peer trading precisely because it can benefit both the artists and the consumers, both of whom have been bullied and abused by the traditional recording industry cartel. Metallica on the other hand has a vested interest in upholding convention, and therefore their efforts can not be construed as being representative of musicians as a whole.
Oh, and regarding the musician/coke thing -- I wasn't aware that we were suddenly living inside an 80s rock video. Silly me.
