Alienating customers and artists-

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One of the many arguments that RIAA and others are making is that the
recording industry needs protection to "compensate artists". 

This is a bit disigenous. Even a group as massively popular as Back Street
Boys has yet to receive  royalties from their labels according to various
reports. 
 
This is not uncommon. RIAA, the music labels and current distributors are
making money for themselves.

This is about industry attempting to  control, not  about real payments to
many artists, although people purchasing music may believe they are
supporting their favorite artists. The money musicians make mostly comes
from touring and concerts.

Part of the reason behind this is the accounting systems the music labels
use. If the labels were more supportive of their artists, with real income,
then the artists would probably be more supportive on this issue. As it is,
many are reluctant to say anything for fear of offending fans whom they need
to show up at concerts. So they can see a profit too!


Sounds a bit like what is happening in the Scientic, Medical and Technical
publishing fields, where the authors "donate" their articles and the largest
publishers do quite well. As long as IP companies continue such approaches,
its unlikely the people who actually provide the content they distribute
will be very interested in seeing them survive in their present forms. Just
as there is a strong "take back control of the literature movement" in
scholarly publishing, we may well see something similar emerge in music as
well. 


The message to RIAA and other groups seems to be quite clear. you need BOTH
your customers and those who produce what you distribute. Alienate one or
the other or both, and you may not have any  business model. 

Is there any other business that alienates customers and suppliers and
expects to remain profitable?