Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JackSpratts
a monthly subscription seems to pay for content - ultimately ripping off artists,
|
That's a curious statement. How can "paying for content" be presumed to be "ripping off artists" without understanding how revenues will be dispursed in that particular business model?
"Paying for content" suggests royalties. But who gets the royalties? Well, that depends on who owns the rights to the music. Any artist who is signed to a major label - the label most likely owns the rights, and therefore would receive the lion's share of the royalties. The artist in this case is being ripped off, but they are being ripped off by the label for whom they signed a contract... not the purchasers of the content.
Many bands are either independant or own their own rights even though they are signed to a major label. Some big name artists own their own label. In these cases, the artists would receive all the royalties due from the purchase of their music. This would hardly be "ripping off the artist."