[H]omer wrote:
> These moguls are just businessmen; they have zero empathy with the
> creative process, and thus view their role in this system entirely
> dispassionately. That is not, in and of itself, a reprehensible or
> corrupt position to adopt, but at some point the game changed from
> "promotion" to "ownership" (a.k.a. "Intellectual Property"), where
> the "artist" became a "product" (e.g. The Artist Formerly Known as
> Prince case);
He was damn happy to sign with Warner Bros. when they could help him.
> and the industry became a grotesque, greedy monster;
Quit pretending you know anything about the music industry.
> out to harvest humans and their artistic works, rather than be the
> symbiotic benefactor that helps them. Now there is no symbiosis at
> all - only leeches sucking every last drop of blood from those who
> are naive enough to play the game.
Now that you're an OSS [H]ypocrite who pretends the involvement of money in
software (and apparently music and all intellectual property) is vulgar and
demeaning, everything is simple and black/white and bad/good.
businessman: bad
artist/developer: good
In the real world, there is a wide continuum of situations and contracts and
mutually agreed upon compensation arrangements.
|
|
