Re: Apple Computer changes its name

[bieling@terra.es]

Michael J. Mahon ha escrito:
>
> More likely if you were a record company executive.

Not really. My neightbour is a singer.  He used to live quite well of
this alone. Then came napster, and incomes dropped. Ask him. Now he
works in a TV show (Los Morancos), as an actor.

Sure, he probably may have wanted a better agreement with the record
company, but it's much better something than nothing at all. Nothing at
all is what he gets when you freely copy and give away his songs. And,
that's another (polemic) story.

The fact is that Apple wants to sell music, so they *have to* do
something against piracy in order to convince the record companys to
sell via iTunes. And, BTW, it's quite easy to workaround itunes'
"antipiracy measures".

Anyway, I just wanted to note the reason why this particular thing is
this particular way.

> Musicians rarely make money from record sales, since most only receive
> a percentage of profits *after all expenses* which includes bloated
> "marketing expenses".  Most musicians make their money from concerts.
>
> Of course, the few blockbuster albums benefit everyone in the food
> chain.
>
> The plain fact is that the marketing and distribution role that
> recording companies serve has been rendered largely redundant, but
> they (of course) fight tooth and nail to retain their now obsolescent
> position.  I doubt that many customers would agree that the lion's
> share of every dollar they spend on recorded music should continue to
> go to the recording company, not the artist.

You can sell your songs straight in iTunes, bypassing any "record
company".

Although I see your point, and I agree that some "adjustments" may be
needed in this market's model, I can't stand by the side of the ones
that find it fair to enjoy all the music they like for 0$ a year.
Sorry, that's, more like, stealing.

Jorge.