|
Diversity and competition are what drives a market. Innovation is brilliant, wonderful and necessary in any market.
Personally I have no problem with anyone who wishes to pursue alternative methodologies for engaging with and ultimately monetising their fan base.
But I still can't see how this negates the need to protect intellectual properties, if you start a "new model" based enterprise, there are costs, for some products these will be small for others large.
An example, hypothetical band A, funds, creates and distributes an album on the web, hoping to recoup their costs of capital expenditure and labour by selling advertising on their website. They have an offer of one band with one record.
An unscrupulous individual takes this work and the work of nine other bands pursuing the new model and bundles them together on a new website. They have an offer of ten bands and ten albums, which offer is more appealing to the consumer and advertiser ? Which offer has the lowest start up cost ? Which offer has the greatest chance of profitability ?
If the "new model" really is the way forward then it should be relatively straight forward for it to enter the market place and out compete the old model. This seems to me the logical, ethical and appropriate way to test the validity of these claims.
In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.
What I have a real problem with, is a few people who find no hypocrisy in tossing around defamatory terms, like "suits", "corporate shills" and defaming other peoples wishes and beliefs while behaving in a way that borders on totalitarian themselves.
James
Last edited by Jam; 21st June 2009 at 08:42 AM..
Reason: Sunday morning idiocy
|