You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Music & The Blockchain - Where are we up to?
does the artists or those who signed them really want to have public contract ?
does the artists or those who signed them really want to have public contract ?
Plus by using encryption and access token we can ensure the wishes of the artists/labels are maintained. A contract doesnt have to be open to the public,only if they want it to be.
it also takes up to 9 months for an artists to receive payments. Automation and blockchain can help speed that up significantly.
The artist most certainly desires transparency. With the labels it depends on how ethical they wish to be. A major label will take up to 80% of the artists income (after the advance has been repaid). The change will be driven by independent and off-label artists.
transparency means less negotiating power and probably slightly worst deal
djm34, for the publishers, maybe (likely not) but in no way can it be considered bad for the artists themselves. If anything it gives the artists far more leverage to use their fanbase to push the labels in a better direction.
It can also be argued that with the cost savings the labels and producers will receive (speed of transactions, far less time to clear payments and reconcile all of the thousands of moving pieces each digital purchase comes along with) can be used to earn labels more money over all because they are receiving a larger piece of the pie by having to do less work overall.
djm34 - i can't understand your logic at all. Could you explain? How is transparency in any way bad for the artist? It obviously means better better deals and more negotiating power.