> [...]but I still think creators were/are being robbed.
Sure, they are. By the recording companies.
The argument we, nerds, made at the time is that with that model of content creation and distribution artists were still getting most of their income from concerts, so ideally they could move to a self-publishing model or even give their music for free and still retain most of their income.
I don't know how familiar you are with the music industry, but the amount of money a musician gets (or used to get, I've been decades away from that business) is usually cents per album sold. You get 100K sales? Congratulations, that's a massive achievement, here's your $5K. To share among all the band members. Off you go.
Don't take my word for it, either, read a few interviews with Trent Reznor in the early 00's, for example, when he left the music label he was with and moved to self-publishing (which he was almost doing anyway), here's one where he talks about this head on:
It turns out that the internet is a great tool for new musicians to advertise themselves, you have plenty of places that allow you to upload your stuff for free and selling your music is easier now than ever. Of course it requires a set of new skills (a bit of marketing, sales, technical know-how) but on the whole, you have more control and less strings attached than with a record label. Very few people buy physical media any more, so most of the advantages of signing with a company (production, sales, distribution, logistics...) are gone anyway.
And that's the beauty of this: Recording labels are still a viable businesses, they can still offer services the musicians and fans need, all we said is that the balance of power had to shift from the power ties in the offices earning millions to the musicians actually making the stuff.
Sure, they are. By the recording companies.
The argument we, nerds, made at the time is that with that model of content creation and distribution artists were still getting most of their income from concerts, so ideally they could move to a self-publishing model or even give their music for free and still retain most of their income.
I don't know how familiar you are with the music industry, but the amount of money a musician gets (or used to get, I've been decades away from that business) is usually cents per album sold. You get 100K sales? Congratulations, that's a massive achievement, here's your $5K. To share among all the band members. Off you go.
Don't take my word for it, either, read a few interviews with Trent Reznor in the early 00's, for example, when he left the music label he was with and moved to self-publishing (which he was almost doing anyway), here's one where he talks about this head on:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/q-a-with-trent-rez...
It turns out that the internet is a great tool for new musicians to advertise themselves, you have plenty of places that allow you to upload your stuff for free and selling your music is easier now than ever. Of course it requires a set of new skills (a bit of marketing, sales, technical know-how) but on the whole, you have more control and less strings attached than with a record label. Very few people buy physical media any more, so most of the advantages of signing with a company (production, sales, distribution, logistics...) are gone anyway.
And that's the beauty of this: Recording labels are still a viable businesses, they can still offer services the musicians and fans need, all we said is that the balance of power had to shift from the power ties in the offices earning millions to the musicians actually making the stuff.