So as the mud started to crack, flop went the recording industry into the next puddle, which in retrospect looks like an episode from TV's The Good Life. The record companies attempted self-sufficiency while their bemused technology neighbours looked over the fence.
So, in 2001 Universal was ready to announce Duet, its exclusive licensing partnership with Sony, to push its own aforementioned bluematter file format on as many unfortunate retailers as it could corral. And shortly after, RealNetworks put together a consortium of the other major labels and announced MusicNet, to do much the same.
Here's the counteraction: 2001 was the year of Apple's 'Rip. Mix. Burn.' campaign, as it added a CD-RW drive to the already iconic iMac home computer.
The labels whinged, of course, and while 'fair use' got its first real public airing in the press, the hipper recording execs started talking about downloading CDs to your computer and ripping the files to your MP3 player. Language is a window on the soul sometimes. The public was so excited by their new freedom with music, that when Apple launched the iPod the brand name was immediately genericised, like the hoover and fridge before it. And recording execs - now looking slightly less hip - started pointedly referring to 'MP3 players': meaning any device which could decrypt Windows Media DRM.
It took just over a year for RealNetworks to realise that record companies were - to bring the Good Life analogy to a climax - unable to recognise a goat, let alone milk one or turn it into curry pasties, hopping back over the fence to rejoin the technologists and announcing that the future was in its own subscription service, Rhapsody. Spotting another muddy puddle, the record strategists flexed their fins and went for it.
Next page: Enter iTunes
>But you're assuming that they will stop selling it after that time period.
No, my assertion is that there will be very very little profit in selling it after that time, because some nobody living in a basement stuffed with CD dup boxes will churn them out for less than the people who made it all happen in the first place.
I'm asserting that that is wrong.
>The artist has only lost time they could have done something else on.
>But then again, if they'd done an advert for TV, they would have spent
>time doing that.
>Yet artists still go on telly and do adverts.
The artist is getting a salary dumbass, someone pays the salary THEY have lost something for unproductive time.
"You're asserting that people wouldn't sell their wares after copyright expiration, which is patent nonsense.Would you rather spend your money with the originator or with a clone? no one seems willing to answer this question."
This question has already been raised and answered by history. This is why copyright exclusivity exists and it's a good thing for the ordinary guy who wants to put stuff out.
OK - suppose you made a few albums in your day, and now the copyright has expired on The Alphaxion Band.
You're now in a marketplace competing with Del Trotter, who can cut corners, churn out an inferior bit of tat, and doesn't have Mrs Alphaxion or the Alphaxion family to feed. So many bambinos - and they're hungry all the time!
Then along comes a punter - and sees Del boy offering the same thing as you (no exclusivity, remember) cheaper.
Which do you think they are going to buy?
Sentiment doesn't work here - so you lose the sale, and it's back to the Pizza Parlour for you, Mr A. Tell the little Alphaxions how you were scammed. Maybe they'll write a blues song about Poor Papa Alphaxion some day?
That's what copyright is for, not to keep fat dumb record company execs in cigars. Maybe you'll learn to appreciate it one day, once you've created something worth copyrighting?
But you're assuming that they will stop selling it after that time period.
That's one hell of an assumption (so is my assumption that they would continue to sell it after that period, copyright or not), all I'm saying is that they get, in effect, an "x" year exclusivity deal, after which they can either sell it as they always have done or try to offer something different to the clones out there.
You're asserting that people wouldn't sell their wares after copyright expiration, which is patent nonsense. Would you rather spend your money with the originator (they might even offer a sweetener in the deal by promising a % of the sale to the creative talen behind it) or with a clone? no one seems willing to answer this question.