From: Alfio Puglisi (puglisi@arcetri.astro.it)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 03:19:30 MDT
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Brian D Williams wrote:
>Lee seems to be arguing that musicians would be better off without
>the record companies, which I think is possible, but I was arguing
>quite simply that people illegally copying copyrighted material
>were infringing on the copyright (remember we went over this last
>time, infringement is not technically theft). This infringement is
>costing the copyright holders money.
Yes, it is. It's costing _the copyright holders_, which often are not the
artists themselves. Please review what you wrote in a previous post:
>People are buying fewer albums, record companies business was down
>over 10% last year.
>Fewer album sales, less profit to the artists.
The music business is a rather complex business, and in evaluating loss
claims I think it's important to clarify WHO is losing money. The RIAA
likes to use the terms "artists" and "copyright holders" in the same
sentence, and give the impression that they are the same. But, more often
than not, the copyright holder is the middleman.
We should not make the same mistake: album sales and artists income are
not directly related. Actually, with most artists having to *pay back* the
record company some money, more album sales will equate more money for the
middleman. While, instead, performances incomes goes into the artists
pocket more directly.
The middlemen know that their business model is being outdated pretty
fast. They were useful when large scale distribution was out of reach for
ordinary people. Now they are using, buying and modifying IP laws for
their own purpose.
Actually, I am surprised that sales are only 10% down, given the
economic slowdown and the millions of songs on the Internet. I expect
further drops of sales, with RIAA and co. crying out loud, and more and
more artists selling directly their songs over the net.
Alfio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:32 MST