Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey  The movie comparison is wrong. They recoup from the public and home performance, CDs are from the home perfomance only. They recoup from product placement fees. At the moment there's no equivalent for labels. Movies have a global market. Music can be global, but movies have the adviantage of subtitles to overcome language barriers.
If you could make $300 million off of an album selling it at a DVD price or any price, don't you think there'd be a lot more than three major labels?
The main reason that it's absurd to sue for illegal downloads is that record labels arent' and haven't been in the business of selling music. They problem is either they don't realize it, or it's simply that their deals don't reflect the actual model of the music business, both current and past. |
i was parafrasing a Frank Filipetti coment in an article in electronic musician. as you said, he also mentioned that the comparison is based after recouping by public perfomance (theatres).
its the bang for the buck ideology. you are getting movies that cost a lot of more money to make for the price a little more than a CD which cost far less to produce.
your last coment sounds interesting. kinda like Mcdonands is is the real estate business rather than in the burger business but they dont know it.
but can u explain a little more though..