Record companies don't steal IP. Artists eagerly seek out record deals because labels do things artists can't and don't want to do themselves (although obviously the role of labels is changing as the industry collapses and transforms). Artists essentially hire labels to promote, distribute, support, and produce the artist, and in return pay the label by giving them a percentage of their profits, if they ever get them. It's similar to filmmakers who make deals with studios or authors who make deals with publishers.

It's cool to say labels are evil, and there's a lot of terrible record contracts that turn artists into indentured servants, but why do people think that every profession in the world should be paid except music? If you make computers all day and you happen to love what you do, should you not get paid? Only an idiot wouldn't want to get paid for their work just because they enjoy doing it.

As for the generic thing, it turns out that the richest artists are the ones who rejected the urge to be like everyone else. The public is what makes musicians rich, not record labels. If you are an amazing musician and not like everyone else, the public rewards you by buying your shit. That is, when they're not stealing it.

There will always be musicians complaining about how the music industry sucks and record labels suck and making money doing music sucks and just give it away and play out every now and then at a coffee house. And hey, all the power to them. But those are the things that musicians typically say to lick their wounds because they aren't good enough to get the fans, record deals, and money from making music that they desperately, secretly crave.

The truth is is that if you are an amazing musician and an original and compelling artist, you have every reason in the world to expect to get rich. If you aren't an amazing and original musician, then, when you talk about it with your friends... the record industry sucks, labels suck, the system sucks, etc.

 Reply

Right now they would have a vested interest in keeping DRM intact. See, people have invested quite a bit of money into iTunes downloads where the only mobile players that support them are made by Apple... that investment makes people much more reluctant to switch to a different DAP and encourages them to buy another iPod/iPhone should their current one die or be lost. It's sort of like how a Pro photographer tends to stick to a specific brand, to switch bodies may only cost $5k but if they also have to replace their $50k lens collection they might be willing to settle for something a bit less capable but more compatible with what they already have.

Now, the question is, is keeping that leverage over consumers worth all of the continuing negative PR, especially when faced, for the first time, with some legitimate competition. I don't think it is

 Reply