I think Silverman is missing the point of the internet -- the important line should not be which artists sold 10,000 records or more, but rather which artists were able to make a living (i.e., have their band/music be their full-time job) outside of the major label system. With the internet, it is incredibly difficult to get the word out on your music and to reach 10,000 potential customers (so having hundreds of thousands of impressions). That being said, even if you only find 1,000 true fans who will buy your album, you both a) get a larger cut of the profits without the label, and b) can leverage that interest into additional sales. I'd be willing to bet that while, even today, it is difficult to reach 10,000 sales without a major label, you can make a living with alternative business models.
I've never understood why Facebook doesn't embrace the fact that not all people want their information public. And while some people do (and thrive with the publicity), Facebook could just as easily have a second set of privacy settings that greatly restricts how public a person's information is.
For example, take the common story of the job applicant who loses his job because of an incriminating photo or series of wall posts on their profile. Imagine if Facebook had settings along the lines of (in addition to the settings they already have), "Keep my information from showing up on Google", "only show selected pictures to close friends", etc. With the right settings, Facebook could be a much more appealing experience.
(I suppose an argument could be made for Facebook's success due to its nature as a "Stalk-Book" -- whether or not people should care, people do care and look at people's pictures and wall posts)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Joel Cornell.
I think Silverman is missing the point of the internet -- the important line should not be which artists sold 10,000 records or more, but rather which artists were able to make a living (i.e., have their band/music be their full-time job) outside of the major label system. With the internet, it is incredibly difficult to get the word out on your music and to reach 10,000 potential customers (so having hundreds of thousands of impressions). That being said, even if you only find 1,000 true fans who will buy your album, you both a) get a larger cut of the profits without the label, and b) can leverage that interest into additional sales. I'd be willing to bet that while, even today, it is difficult to reach 10,000 sales without a major label, you can make a living with alternative business models.
I've never understood why Facebook doesn't embrace the fact that not all people want their information public. And while some people do (and thrive with the publicity), Facebook could just as easily have a second set of privacy settings that greatly restricts how public a person's information is.
For example, take the common story of the job applicant who loses his job because of an incriminating photo or series of wall posts on their profile. Imagine if Facebook had settings along the lines of (in addition to the settings they already have), "Keep my information from showing up on Google", "only show selected pictures to close friends", etc. With the right settings, Facebook could be a much more appealing experience.
(I suppose an argument could be made for Facebook's success due to its nature as a "Stalk-Book" -- whether or not people should care, people do care and look at people's pictures and wall posts)