Because here is the point: who has an interest in protecting artists? Let’s imagine you are a professional musician and your project of album comes true: you get signed to a record label. What are you going to get next? An advance payment against royalties from the label. And, as you will not sell millions of discs, it will certainly take a long time before you get something more, or even maybe this will never happen again…

For a classical artist, recording is not a major source of income, but is rather a marketing tool, which helps us to sell concerts. A kind of visit card, which promotes our work to the public, concerts organizers and the press. Its purpose is therefore to be propagated as much as possible, no matter if its distribution is free, as long as it is not a substantial source of income.

Finally, the record label is the main interested party in this business. The company wants to cover its production expenses, which is laudable, but will survive only if it sells enough discs. The fight against piracy benefits mainly the record company but not its artist.

Whether this fight against piracy fails or free downloading wins the battle, record companies in their present form will cease to exist. (as well as all the organisations for protection of artists’ “rights”). The artist, as for him, will always be there and will be able to adapt to the new market rules.

Who does benefit from law?

Related posts:

1. On selling concerts
2. The SACEM’s twists and turns
3. The score (2/4) – Editions