3 ms·

> Artists deserve to be compensated, I like this dig at Sony. I don't believe for a second that Sony has any interest of the artists in mind. It's all about th

> Artists deserve to be compensated, I like this dig at Sony. I don't believe for a second that Sony has any interest of the artists in mind. It's all about their own profits at all cost. They wouldn't care in the slightest if artists died of hunger. But that's just my opinion from dealing with the record labels myself.

airhead969 5y ago
Sony BMG can talk a long walk off a short pier. They're blood-sucking, rent-seeking, cannibal vampires. If people would watch it, they would pay homeless people to dance and fight each other in LA's canals during a storm, monetize it, advertise it on all platforms, and they would still sleep OK at night.
jfengel 5y ago
It's true. Sony doesn't care about artists, any more than your boss or company cares about you. But they are, nonetheless, the ones paying the artists. Not nearly enough, and with plenty of shenanigans, but that doesn't change the fact that every movie ends with a long, long, long list of people who got paid for working on it -- by Sony. It's disingenuous for Sony to pretend they care about anything other than their own profits. It's just tugging at heartstrings. Few of them actually get a share of the profits. They work for a paycheck. But they've nonetheless got a point: they hire artists, lots of 'em. Some of their profits go into making the next movie. Arguably, that's better than caring about them. I don't particularly like facile capitalist arguments, but Adam Smith's quote about the baker really does apply here: the artists don't need Sony to care, they just need Sony to pursue its own self interest because it happens to also profit them. You won't see me crying over Sony's lost profits, and I'd love for more people to see movies other than studio blockbusters. But I know a lot of people who make movies and they do, in fact, get their paychecks and royalty checks from Sony.

airhead969 5y ago

Sony BMG can talk a long walk off a short pier. They're blood-sucking, rent-seeking, cannibal vampires. If people would watch it, they would pay homeless people to dance and fight each other in LA's canals during a storm, monetize it, advertise it on all platforms, and they would still sleep OK at night.

jfengel 5y ago

It's true. Sony doesn't care about artists, any more than your boss or company cares about you. But they are, nonetheless, the ones paying the artists. Not nearly enough, and with plenty of shenanigans, but that doesn't change the fact that every movie ends with a long, long, long list of people who got paid for working on it -- by Sony. It's disingenuous for Sony to pretend they care about anything other than their own profits. It's just tugging at heartstrings. Few of them actually get a share of the profits. They work for a paycheck. But they've nonetheless got a point: they hire artists, lots of 'em. Some of their profits go into making the next movie. Arguably, that's better than caring about them. I don't particularly like facile capitalist arguments, but Adam Smith's quote about the baker really does apply here: the artists don't need Sony to care, they just need Sony to pursue its own self interest because it happens to also profit them. You won't see me crying over Sony's lost profits, and I'd love for more people to see movies other than studio blockbusters. But I know a lot of people who make movies and they do, in fact, get their paychecks and royalty checks from Sony.