The damn good argument is this: if I own the copyright (musicians, or music labels,) it is my CHOICE to release it for free if I want to. If you own a home, it's your choice to let people in. If you do not want people in you lock the door.
BUT If someone releases it without my consent, then it is illegal. I know thats hard to wrap your head around, so you may find this article interesting. What it essentially means is, without copyright law, music labels, and people who walk through the middle of the square disregard the price tag attached to the cd's and just take them are clearly, knowingly, and cynically exploiting artists.
Of course it should be up to the music labels and musicians to be forthright as to what they are doing. The study in canada you mentioned I suspect is a matter of music labels trying to fight fire with fire. It still doesn't make it right, however. And the very fact there are so many justifications for theft, makes me think most people know it too, whether they want to admit it or not.
And let me ask you this, to use your analogy one more time: There's a person in that square putting up all those cd's. His name is Kim Dot Com. And he sells ad space in the square. Ad space that made him a billionaire. No one gave him permissions to upload all that music. He just did it anyway. My question is, doesn't it bother you at all that while artists are being exploited by people running through that square there are one or two people making shit loads of money off of this practice? This has replaced the mean old record industry with something far sinister, more cynical and more detrimental, in my opinion.
"But realistically, to appreciate the plusses of today, it helps to understand where we’ve come from."
YES please. There are emerging creatives (and social media planners etc alike) out there that have no idea what fragmentation was like in the 90's let alone the 50's when TV was the new thing. To call the lack of knowledge dangerous is a bit much. But it certainly adds a "those who don't know are destined to repeat," quality to it. Magazines got fragmented, then they imploded. The same will happen online, and if it isn't an outright implosion, it's now a question of do we buy more media to reach smaller audiences or less to reach the most in one go?
"But I don’t want to crap up Instagram with ads. Or brand images. And I don’t think most users are there to get served ads."
You're right about that,. Users aren't anywhere to get served ads except on the super bowl and how we convinced them to give a crap about that is beyond me.
The same goes with story telling across all platforms in a 360 arc with inception-style deepness. The only people avidly engaging across all platforms this are award show judges when they watch the case study video. The average user-- hell, the above and below average users too-- do not give two shits about advertising. if you manage to get them to pay attention in one place you have done your job. But to ask them to follow along skip-to-my-lou style from tv to digital to apps to print to qr codes, to online 'films,' to extended content, plus in-game branding easter eggs? C'moooooon.
I really enjoyed this article, by the way.
There are currently 2 users online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
