it's only less profitable for the writer because the publishing company takes such a large piece of the profits. Again, these publishing companies, movie studio and production companies, and record labels are the vampires that bleed these artists dry, not the people who want to listen to their music. If I download something for free, there is a good chance that if I like it, I will purchase something from that artist in the future, its advertising.
the more musicians get their stuff out there, the more they can make for performance. and again, every other job requires actual performance. you dont hear surgeons whining when information about their new procedure gets out. they still make money by actually performing the procedure. so if musicians have to sing or play guitar, so be it.
You are so correct, along these lines I have read complaints from Julian Lennon and also read some of Tom Schultz's about these companies. The internet age, computer age, U Tube and other sources online gives the musician the opportunity to be themselves and advertise and choose what to do with their own material and career.
sourdoughman is correct. red is just old. the younger folks i know never buy anything. but they watch tons of music on youtube (ad supported) and spotify (also ad supported) and there is still plenty of profit. just like free TV, a model which has worked forever. red is tied to dead technology. he cant adapt. lasalle and sourdough and i are younger and more adpatable to changing systems.
lets assume the artist is being ripped off. honestly what is wrong with that. why do you think stealing is wrong, morally?
I do think the artist is being ripped off, I just don't think it's by people who download their stuff. It's the record companies. And why do I have to prove anything, I'm not trying to change your mind. I think it therefor in my world it is.
You are apparently incapable of understanding right and wrong. Not my problem. These examples are absurd. You have no clue regarding intellectual property rights. It doesn't change right and wrong, thief.
if i am a thief, and that is wrong, then you are also a "criminal" for smoking pot. do you see why simply saying criminal or thief doesnt make something wrong? you have to actually understand morality. there is not a societal negative from the free flow of information, it is a huge net positive that should be embraced. just because some politician ( who is bought by big pharma or a coke cartel, or big music) says something is wrong, that doesnt make it true.
