My favourite theory about Piracy is that if many people could pay for what they downloaded for free, they wouldn’t bother buying it at all.
Which means that neither the artist or record company would be affected.
I might be wrong, but if you’re not totally sold on an album which will set you back $20, then why buy it at all?
Some of you know that I buy fancy limited edition vinyl records, I do so because they’re a kind of souvenir which is special and I can only get for a week or two before they’re all gone.
I don’t play these records, in fact I don’t even own a working turntable.
If I want to listen to music then I’m perfectly happy listening to something on YouTube or some streaming service, even the radio.
And that’s what I wanted to talk about.
I listen to a classic rock station at home, and I find that certain names pop up frequently, The Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Queen and David Bowie to name just a few.
Now I don’t know if anyone has considered this before but, If I am really keen on a particular artist, and their songs are played about twice a day on the radio, then what reason do I have to go out and spend $20 on a CD?
Sure the radio station pays royalties, and quite a lot actually.
I tried to run my own radio station from home at one point, but the licence fee was a killer, and that was partly why I shut it down, the other reason was that I never thought it would take off anyway and knew I’d get tired of it, which of course I did.
But do the royalties give the artist (or should I say their record company) as much as if the public went “Gosh I love that band, I really must buy one of their CDs”?
It’s a very fine line, you promote yourself online, or on the radio which helps people remember you and your music, and perhaps even buy it.
Or they hear you too often and don’t buy your work at all.