[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: Just one question. If you want to sell a house, you invite people to have a look. A sample. You don't give them the house. How is giving people the product they are being asked to buy, any sort of exposure?

The point I am making Yorick is that in this scenario, you are not allowed to advertise the house in the paper, nor stick a 'for-sale', nor employ an estate agent to sell the property. Furthermore, potential buyers are not allowed to take photographs of the property, nor take a tape-recorder with them or make any notes of any form whilst there.

Under those circumstances, with little exposure and the inability of the potential buyer to take meausures to help them to decide on whether to buy, your house is unlikely to achieve the sale price that it might have done in a more liberal world.

Originally posted by Yorick: Here, try this food.... aha! Did you like it? Could you please pay now!? Hardly.

Actually, that's quite common. Have you never had a free sample product and never bought the product as a result? I have (as many others have done) and the sampling system works or producers would have given it up years ago.

Originally posted by Yorick: mp3s ARE the product. Radio play and TV play were the sample, but online, people own the product. The whole thing is pointless, as it leads to DECREASED sales, rather than increased sales. Live shows for sucessful bands, are to promote the CD. Do you know how much it costs me to put on a show in NYC? $1000 at least. Costs me even after entry dollars added in. I do it to generate exposure to sell records later. I don't make records to generate exposure for live shows.

While it is true that there is a hardcore of music lovers who willing to pay to hear unknown band, or to spend an evening listening to a band of unknown quality (where the venue has a reputation of billing decent artists), the vast majority of people will not. Most people hear of good bands by word of mouth and by hearing their music, either by the radio or when their friends play it to them.

Originally posted by Yorick: THAT is draconian. The "record is exposure for your live show" principle was in effect when records first started. Artists got NO royalites whatsoever for their work. We have PROGRESSED since then. You are wanting to turn the clock BACK???

Your missing my point. No-one says that the artist shouldn't be paid for CD sales - only that the laws should be relaxed enough so that exposure and innovation is not unduly hindered.
I am sure that you would agree with me that Austriaila is BRIMMING OVER with musical talent. Yet if you compare the number of successful artists (especially those independant of the big labels), the number of them is MUCH lower than that of Britain or the US (taking into account the population levels of course). The reason for that is because they are stifled - they are not getting the exposure that they might otherwise have had under a 'fair use' doctrine.

In my car I have a few compiled CD's made from music that I have PURCHASED. If I were to take the originals out with me, that would mean that not only would I have on average around $1000 worth in my car. That's rather a lot of cash to leave lying around - so frankly, I wouldn't have them in the car. That also means that my passengers would never again say:
"Hey, that's cool, who is that band?,"
That has happened quite a few times as I'm more interested in indie music which rarely gets airplay or exposure on MTV etc - but if would never happen again if Ausrailian law ruled the day (because I AM a law-abiding citizen and I would obey the law even if I didn't agree with it).

THAT would be a step backwards - and we would end up living in a world where only artists like 'the spice girls', 'Back Street Boys', ' Take that' etc. (created and funded by the big labels who would be the only ones to have the finanical muscle to market them). ***shudder***


[ 02-07-2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]