[cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. Safety

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 10:05 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> There is no competition of
> providers for "Yesterday" from the Beatles, or "Steamboat Willy" from
> Walt Disney, and there is only a finite supply of TV distribution
> channels, all in the hands of a few evermore-concentrated corporations
> which share the same narrow interests.  The fundamental requirements
> for the theoretical free market model to apply are not even close to
> being fulfilled.

In the current distribution structure, I agree. In the future this may
not be true, and I think that Apple's dealing direct with the artists is
an indication of the future.

I have some limited direct experience from the artist perspective on the
bottom end, and I've talked with some relatively big names about this
over the years. From what I understand, there are two things that
*everybody* (big or small) agrees on: 1. the labels are a pain in the
ass, and 2. the distribution channels are ripping the artists off.

If you go back and look at the transition from records to CDs in the
states, you'll see that the rip-off was very explicit. Artist royalties
from CDs were reduced to "promote" the "new technology" even though CDs
were cheaper in all respects to produce and distribute. Many artists
refused to release on CD for many years because the artists's share of
the sale was so low.

There is still a huge simmering anger about this. And contrary to what
they tell the artists, the labels actually aren't very good at
promotion. Whether they are or not, the promotion function is something
that can be done on a competitive basis.

So basically, I believe that many artists would distribute direct to
customers if electronic means existed to do so reliably.

If my guess is right, there is still only one "Beatles", but the fact
that it is a market of one-off items doesn't change the fact that it is
a free market.


shap