![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljI don't know how I feel about this.
Basically, artists haven't seen one thin dime from all the lawsuits filed by the record industry against filesharers. The RIAA/corporations have kept all the profit. The artists are now asking "where's our cut, since you're doing this in our name?"
On the one hand, I totally think they should receive their fair share from any settlement, because the artists are the creators.
I also have mixed thoughts on file-sharing, and while I know it's not legal, I also think it should be expanded. But I also think that artists should ultimately be compensated somehow. I dunno, it's a tricky bag.
However, my concern here is that I vehemently disagree with this tortuous lawsuits against individuals by these mammoth corporations that harm individuals. Musicians who jump in to get their cut (and if they actually receive it) are now going to have a psychological motive to support further actions to receive more of a cut. I'm not saying this is totally how it will work, but it incentivizes the artists to side with the industry instead of the fans. And the industry's actions, in this case, are horrendous.
It may be that artists will try to get their cut against the labels, while not getting sucked into the sue-happy trap. It may be that these artists are like Metallica, and fully support such actions. I haven't looked too far into each artist being discussed here to know what they think.
But if this is successful, and other artists jump on board, it might be that artists sympathetic to open sharing will turn to support egregious actions. Though I can't imagine someone like Trent Reznor or Thom Yorke would do such a thing. But others who are on the fence, might.
Basically, artists haven't seen one thin dime from all the lawsuits filed by the record industry against filesharers. The RIAA/corporations have kept all the profit. The artists are now asking "where's our cut, since you're doing this in our name?"
On the one hand, I totally think they should receive their fair share from any settlement, because the artists are the creators.
I also have mixed thoughts on file-sharing, and while I know it's not legal, I also think it should be expanded. But I also think that artists should ultimately be compensated somehow. I dunno, it's a tricky bag.
However, my concern here is that I vehemently disagree with this tortuous lawsuits against individuals by these mammoth corporations that harm individuals. Musicians who jump in to get their cut (and if they actually receive it) are now going to have a psychological motive to support further actions to receive more of a cut. I'm not saying this is totally how it will work, but it incentivizes the artists to side with the industry instead of the fans. And the industry's actions, in this case, are horrendous.
It may be that artists will try to get their cut against the labels, while not getting sucked into the sue-happy trap. It may be that these artists are like Metallica, and fully support such actions. I haven't looked too far into each artist being discussed here to know what they think.
But if this is successful, and other artists jump on board, it might be that artists sympathetic to open sharing will turn to support egregious actions. Though I can't imagine someone like Trent Reznor or Thom Yorke would do such a thing. But others who are on the fence, might.
