The tectonic changes facing media companies are by now the topic of an often-recited sermon. Put briefly, digital technology is placing control over much information squarely in the hands of consumers and creating all kinds of opportunities for new entrants who can push the revolution forward.
And…
These are new-media ventures that leave the competition scratching their heads because they don’t really aim to compete in the first place; their creators are merely taking advantage of the economics of the online medium to do something that they feel good about. They would certainly like to cover their costs and maybe make a buck or two, but really, they’re not in it for the money. By purely commercial measures, they are illogical. If your name were, say, Rupert or Sumner, they would represent the kind of terror that might keep you up at night: death by smiley face. [emphasis mine.]
What he said, with reservations. Thoughts?
There’s a good deal more to be said on the subject of the democratization of technology and its consequences, depending on how you see it, and the importance of finding constructive ways to reassess the criminality of the business at hand. What you have right now is a sort of open-ended war against persons by a public/private venture (e.g. business and government; see also: war on drugs.) A meaningful compromise needs to be reached, and it’s possible that as corporate holdings are divested for lack of profitability that artists may have new opportunities to control their work and sell it as they see fit.
As regards profitability: profitable for whom? Steve Gordon said himself that once Albini gets past the rhetoric, the numbers still apply. After all, it’s a business crisis, not a music crisis.