Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 1557700" data-attributes="member: 19675">Do the record companies shaft new artists?  Oh yes.  However, realize that 90% of all albums released NEVER SHOW A PROFIT.  One mega-hit album, Thriller being the best example, enables a company to subsidize a host of new artists.  Most bands don't have the money it takes to do a professional sounding recording.  Studio time costs hundreds of dollars an hour, some even charge more than most of my colleages do.So, in stealing the popular stuff, you're keeping those labels from distributing albums,  paying the artists they have signed, and from signing other bands.  You're hurting the company, yes, but you're hurting the artists too.Ani DiFranco rocks, but it is the rare artist who can parley years of work into a successful recording career (note-not musical career- there are plenty of successful professional musicians who never record an album).  The advantage of the big company system is its worldwide distribution system.Is there a better way?  Probably, but the transition will take time, and it is still not an excuse for theft.  In fact, I know of at least one system in the works that could make the record store (and the videogame store, and the movie store) completely obsolete while still maintaining the goods in their present form- cover art, liner notes, etc.  But you'll STILL have to pay for the music.Destroying companies is anti-capitalistic.  Perhaps you're a socialist (I'm not using this as a perjorative, just a descriptor) who thinks Marx had it right that companies screw humans.  The problem is that human beings want to be paid for their labor, and destruction of capitalism runs counter to the best way humanity has found (SO FAR) to exchange goods and services with each other with a minimum of transaction costs.  Capitalism allows for economies of scale, international distribution, task specialization, and so forth.  Every small company "dreams" of being larger, if for no other reasons than the benefits of economies of scale and the ability to weather economic changes.Without big companies, you (assuming you're an average US citizen) wouldn't be able to afford a car or the gas that goes in it; a TV, a computer; and you DEFINITELY wouldn't have most of your utilities.Your enemies aren't the big companies, but the people who run them unscrupulously.  Besides, your assertion is internally inconsistent.  If Ani DiFranco's label became as big as Bertelsmann, would it then be OK to steal from her?And to drag this back to the original point-name an RPG game company that would qualify as big enough to be worthy of your "stealing from them is OK" test. The above was in response to my example about someone taking a report from your computer and submitting it as their workTrust me- you try that argument in court, your client is going to jail.  To make it more clear, assume that the person who took the report was a "hacker" who worked for another company.  That is INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, and that is definitely a theft-style crime.</blockquote>

Verification