>In my scenario the artists would own the music, end of story.
>In my scenario an artist would be architect, builder, and landlord.
>
OK, that's an interesting scenario, but your post I think implied
that you feel the current scenario is sort of wrong, morally wrong --
that in a way in the current scenario the musicians get "ripped off"
by the record companies (if that wasn't what your tone was meant to
communicate .. I'm sorry)
>The record company is merely a marketing vehicle.
presumably here you also mean "in your scenario"
> It can be replaced in five minutes.
(ditto)
> In my scenario an artist could own the music and strike a deal with
>a record company to market the music.
I just dunno if that's how musicians would want it though. Musicians
are clueless and know nothing about business. Currently, from each
record company a handful of important video directors and big song
writers, and also performers, make all the money for the record
companies. They subsidize the small acts--who would make nothing
under the scenario you describe.
{In the current system the small acts "should" make nothing sort of
morally if you will...it's a crap idea (IMHO) for bands that don't
sell to be living off Madonna -- but that's the record company's
choice, if they wanna do it that way) (Presumably the music company's
rationale is to "build up-and-comers," but I see no evidence of that.
[there's rarely a small non-selling band living off madonna that
comes good and eventually makes big selling records] it seems to
just create moral hazard for small non-selling musicians...and then
on top of that they tend to whine and so on that their music (which:
doesn't sell) is sort of "good" in some ineffable sense ... and then
you're exactly one step from Sweden, where the govmint buys any
canvas with paint on it because it is "art" (rofl) and hangs them up
in endless warehouses, and all the joys of sweden's successful
economy!}
In your example:
>My wife is a manufacturer's representative for women's accessories.
>The manufacturers design, produce, and own the products.
Right -- and somewhere in that process the manufacturer happens to
hire a designer (say a Phillipe Starck or Michael Graves, like Target
does, or Kate Spade who does handbags...or more likely just some
nameless fellow in the back room) who actually "makes" (in the sense
of "designing on paper") the product.
But you wouldn't in a fit (I assume?) suggest that Starck should own
the Target corporation?
Should a car designer own Ford or GM?! Should mr. pininfarina own ferrari?
That's all that musicians are in the music industry (as it exists
now), they're nothing.
I mean "Jay" is incredibly important to e-gold, but e-gold *is*
Doug's. It's not Jay's!
What you're saying is analogoug to saying "and in the future, in my
scenario, folks like Jay would own their own DGC". I mean I suppose
that's fine and they can do that if they want. (Hi Jay!)
> My wife markets them to retailers and collects a commission. It works fine.
>
Right .. simarly music companies happen to hire - say - ad agencies,
design companies, marketing think tanks, researchers etc as one small
part of what they do. (In the above you rather suggest that music
companies are "just" that advertising part .. I just don't think that
makes much sense, though :O )
Certainly, by all means, there are examples of individuals who not
only say design a car, but entirely own the car company (maybe like
DeLorean was an example of that, I dunno). Indeed ... Prince has now
become such an entity in the music world (good luck to him...its a
free world).
More generally on the topic (Ray!) ... you get this sort of
"wired-magazine-libertarianism" view (as its sometimes called) of
people who like napster coz its gonna break down evil record
companies (or.......something vaguely revolutionarily against The
Man) ... but it's not capitalism. It's called: "theft". If Ayn Rand
was still around she'd probably SHOOT anyone who napster'd a copy of
one of her novels or movies. If I use photoshop without paying for
it for awhile, I openly call that THEFT. Because that's what it is.
THEFT. Private property ... like it or lump it! :)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Gold is the soul of all civil life, that can
resolve all things into itself, and turn itself
into all things' Samuel Butler
---
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.
