I’m bored. I thought I’d point out a news bit I find interesting today:
That’s a whole new way to look at it:
Through her attorneys, Michele Scimeca contends that by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime.
Which just reminds me of that different view I lately read about again that, in reality the artists are not the ones that worry much about material that’s shared online, because many of the people involved in a production are paid per hour or paid per month, and they do not profit from the rest of the money that’s made by record companies and such. The ones that really profit in the end are the record companies, but not the artists.
As far as I know Michael Jackson gets about 3 to 4 dollars per album that’s sold. The rest goes to the company, and in Michael’s case e.g. SONY hasn’t even promoted his last album for that money they made. And Michael is one of the artists that actually earns well per album. There are other artists, that earn a lot less per album that’s sold. No wonder that Michael didn’t support the RIAA and said they should stop suing people. He knows he won’t earn more money afterwards anyway, especially if his company fails to promote an album that could have sold probably twice as much as it did. There’s no point for many artists to complain, especially for those that are paid per hour.
They’re all just trying to make money with least effort. Suing a few individuals for several 100 thousand dollars is quite a cheap way to make money and saves a lot of time and money they could instead invest in promotion to make that money they get from these few sued individuals.
But ah well… I don’t like music much anymore anyway. I’d also see no point in suing people, because they mostly just exchange stuff online that they also wouldn’t buy if they couldn’t get it online. People just listen to a lot of stuff, because they can get it easily. But if they didn’t have the Internet they’d not want to have most of the stuff really and would never go to a shop and buy it, too. So I wonder how much money artists and companies would really lose if you abolished the Internet again. They’d probably just sell the same amount of albums, because people would still think twice about whether they want to buy the stuff or not.
I find most of the released stuff so crappy nowadays that I wouldn’t even waste my time on downloading it. I do not even watch music TV channels anymore, because it annoys me to have to listen to most of the stuff, and there I could get all that mess for free also. Same with the radio, I never listen to it, pointless.
I think the RIAA should better ask around and ask what people want and think about how to make a change about the music industry to make it more attractive again to buy albums. But the RIAA doesn’t even want to know about that kind of things. They just want money.Powered by Sidelines