If the ONLY distribution channel open to artists/record labels was a libre channel sans DRM, would the artists/record labels (etc) stop producing and distributing? I think not. They will still make more money out of such libre publishing than they would:
(1) if they didnt publish at all (2) if they had published years ago when fewer people had access to such material in the form of vinyl, cds, tape, etc. A libre distribution channel sans DRM has to be the most profitable long-term model, so long as it is tagged to a sensible pricing structure. Better a slice of a huge non-DRM cake, then to have the whole of a tiny DRM cake that alienates your customers. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] £1.2 billion question (or RE: [backstage] BBC Bias??? >Click and Torrents) On 13/02/07, Richard Lockwood < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: Your argument is that all music should be utterly free. Which, while a nice idea in Davetopia, or wherever you live, is completely unworkable. I suspect that he would like all music to be free (libre), not free (gratis), and why would it be unworkable? "Study Finds P2P Has No Effect on Legal Music Sales": http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/1332214 What are the artists worried about, or more technically what are the record labels and agents worried about, i suspect that the artists don't mind anywhere as much as organisations like the BPI Vijay
