I wish to exemplify that monetary gain is almost directly related to exposure in regards to the masses. The basis of this thread is to show that the
real value in art is in its reception of the said masses.
While the argument of illegitimate monetary gain can be made, the real question that remains is whether or not that monetary gain is made more
profitable by the spread of knowledge between individuals or of corporations.
I do believe that this is the crux of the copyright ordeal that we are currently witnessing.
Is it more profitable to the person who manifested their own work to seek publicity on their own through the internet or those (especially
corporations) who merely provide channels for the artist to reach the masses.
If more pfrofit can be gained through self-promotion then what should happen to the middle man?
I can say that, for myself I PVR the shows that I like and there fore bypass much of the advertising that keeps the the makers of a show from
fulfilling their full monetary potential. Am I in the wrong?
I must say that I find there is a lack of testimony on behalf of artists. However, if an artist wishes to sign their rights over to a label then I
agree that any corporation in contract with said artist has the right to sue for copyright infringement. After all, this is not an after-death
contract. But what happens if there is an intermediary?
That being said, I would still love to hear from artists, regardless.
I for one believe that those who promote others work are simply feeding off the work of others and the internet is a threat to that system. I feel
that, in today's society, businesses who's job is to advertise is slowly becoming obsolete as there are other avenues.
I would truly wish for more artists who have personal experiences with labels et.al. to present what they have learned and whether or not it is
hurting them or the labels or both.
- AeonStorm -
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 18-10-2012 by AeonStorm because: grammar, reorganized, added