Subject: RE: [hackers-il] RE: RE: Open-Source and Objectivism

From: Chen Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:20:30 +0200

> I can't decide either. All I know is I'd rather see 
> mainstream commercial
> Music disappear than see a lot of people go to jail for downloading
> songs, even if they do not legitimately own the CDs. Much 
> less, seeing a
> law such as the SSSCA get passed.

Thats the catch.
Mainstream music won't disappear.
They are popular enough to survive on concerts, merchendise (ie t-shirts),
commercials on website, etc.
The problem is with unpopular music.
Music publishers are taking a risk when publishing alternative music. There
is a change that not enough people will buy it. Concerts and merchendise
certainly don't generate much revenew, so if people will start downloading
it, cutting the CD Sales even more, it may throw them below profitability
line.

I don't want to live in a world where the only option is Spice Girls.
I want music companies to be able to take risks with non-mainstream.
I think that we as a society should help them do this, while minimizing the
restriction we have on the consumers.

Thanks,
Chen.

---

From: Alon Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:30:47 +0200 (IST)

> it, cutting the CD Sales even more, it may throw them below profitability

  Quite the contrary. Popular music such as "the spice girls" has one
objective - making money for the record companies by selling lots and lots
of CDs. Most of the money from this music comes via record sales, and most
of the expense is publicity. It's a straightforward investment-revenue
scheme for the record companies. If all copyrights were removed, the
investment in creating pop will not be worthwhile for the record companies
and they will concentrate on creating idols and merchandising instead.

  However, alternative music is not made for profit. Usually the performers
get petty salaries if any at all and are exploited by the record companies.
If all copyrights are lifted, these alternative performers will have no
competition against for-profit music and the songs will compete based on
merit and not on publicity. Also, if the music itself is good, the fans can
repay the performers, and will feel more obligated to do so if they were not
paying for the copyright directly. Thus, a lot of money that would have been
tunneled to the hands of record companies and publicity agents would instead
get to the hands of the artists directly.

> restriction we have on the consumers.

I agree, and I think lifting copyright is a step in the right direction.

  Alon

-- 
This message was sent by Alon Altman ([email-masked]) ICQ:1366540
The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise nonexistent :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does it go when you flush?

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:42:16 +0200

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001, Chen Shapira wrote about "RE: [hackers-il] RE: RE: Open-Source and Objectivism":
>..

Then go to a local bar or whatever that features some live acts. Go to
Jazz clubs, or whatever kind of musics you like. Get live singers for your
weddings and bar-mitvahs.
More money for these amature musicians will mean that they will be able to
focus on their music (rather than needing to get another job), and wait for
their "big break", when some record company decides to publish them.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |    Thursday, Dec 13 2001, 28 Kislev 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |May you live as long as you want - and
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |never want as long as you live.