At 11:20 AM 10/9/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>... The artists could get a huge cut and not be indentured servants to >>the record companies. > >Geez, what is this ... communist day?
Let's see, what did I describe? Artists would produce music, own music, sell direct to the market, bypass the "RIAA quintopoly" (thanks JMR), and get a huge cut. Sounds like private property, competition, and creative destruction to me. Definitely not communism. >Whoever owns the music, owns the music, end of story. In my scenario the artists would own the music, end of story. >The "artists" are nothing, they can all be replaced in five >minutes. They're of little more importance than minor actors in movies, >so what? Architects and builders don't own buildings .. building owners >own buildings. In my scenario an artist would be architect, builder, and landlord. The record company is merely a marketing vehicle. It can be replaced in five minutes. In my scenario an artist could own the music and strike a deal with a record company to market the music. Record companies would still serve an important purpose and thrive accordingly. My wife is a manufacturer's representative for women's accessories. The manufacturers design, produce, and own the products. My wife markets them to retailers and collects a commission. It works fine. -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
