On Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:09:47 PM Roger Eller wrote: > I agree. In fact, I witnessed the rise of a YouTube artist, and bought his > very first CD because 1) he was that good, and 2) I wanted to be supportive > of the hundreds of songs he posted on YouTube (and I enjoyed for free). > THAT is an artist! Play it to express what you feel, and if we feel it too, > we will buy it.
The effect of unlicensed redistribution on the music industry is a topic of huge debate. The view the RIAA and AF of M take is certainly an exageration. But unlicensed distribution is not harmless. Your anecdote reflects a legitimate part of the debate, but the music industry is not some simple monolith. Many of us work for wages which are determined by the projected use and distribution of the final product. While it is undeniable that the exposure gained through unlicensed redistribution can be an incredible boon to some projects, it also competes with licensed distribution and certainly makes it impossible to fairly compensate many of us when the actual distribution is unknowable. I can't escape the feeling that a part of what some of you are saying is that you feel the entities that produced the material have received what you believe to be a fair return and they should not be entitled to receive anything more and therefore any future use of that product shall be without cost to you. Is that really what you think? Is it really reasonable? Sincerely, Warren _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
