3 ms·
It wasn't an argument that Mick Jagger made though, so there's nothing to review based on merits. It was a simple statement of fact. Any argument is by implicat
by mattmaroon 16y ago
It wasn't an argument that Mick Jagger made though, so there's nothing to review based on merits. It was a simple statement of fact. Any argument is by implication (ie. that because it was not always this way, it should not be that way).
There was no discussion of how much artists should make at all, and any implication of such is suffering from the logical fallacy that because things have always been a certain way, that is the way they should be in the future.
- alanthonyc 16y agoSorry, I left out the part where you discussed how much artists should make: "I like music, and as such would like to see artists remain profitable, even after the demise of the CD." Separate from that, the logical fallacy to which you refer is true, but equally applies to the business model that has existed for the past 50 years on which the record labels have relied. To wit: just because it's been the case in our lifetime, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change. And no, musicians will not go hungry because of it as you imply, although lawyers might have to find a new line of work.