3 ms·
Not sure that has to do with copyright. The music industry served primarily as a distribution platform for years, though the entire time it was convincing itse
by wdewind 16y ago
Not sure that has to do with copyright. The music industry served primarily as a distribution platform for years, though the entire time it was convincing itself it was a filter and an artist itself. It thought its profits were based on its ability to churn out hits, when in fact its profits were based on its ability to churn out SOMETHING to a lot of people. Now that distribution is no longer a challenge, it's a lot harder for Bon Jovi to compete (and a lot less likely that he will be interpreted as a signal amongst the noise).
I question that the music industry will go away. It will just change. As I said before, it is and remains primarily a distribution platform not a content filter, and there will always be distribution challenges that artists do not want to (or know how to) solve.
Also, the musicians who existed long before copyright that you speak of often needed to be sponsored by nobility just to eat. I'm not sure that's a better system.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hessenwolf 16y agoThere are still plenty of musicians out there who survive by a meal, a few pints, and a some cash from pub gigs - busking if needs be. The music for the nobility was paid for by the nobility, but all the other music was paid for by the corresponding audiences.
- mcculley 16y agoThere aren't just two choices: sponsorship by nobility and Bon Jovi. If the "music industry" collapses one can still imagine plenty of musicians making a living from performing or other business models.