@moore850,
Hey, you make some valid points, and that point of view does have some credibility. But to suggest that it is remotely compelling or important enough to allow bullying corporations strip individuals of their rights of assembly and speech, purely in pursuit of higher profit margins, seems silly to me.
Remember, we are not talking about defending artists here. Organisations like BRIEN are funded by, and act on behalf of the labels, who famously screw the artists out of every dime they possibly can. If they really wanted to help the artists they could start by not ripping them off massive amounts using creative accounting and then only giving them a few % of record sales to pay it back. All they actually want is to line their pockets. So which is more important?
Isn't a founder's unique contribution the 'decision to execute'? Once that decision is made, and followed up on by cajolling investors and recruiting implementers, then it doesn't really matter what the founding idea was (since any startup needs to be nimble enough to pursue whatever good opportunities they discover along the way). The founder may well be the brightest and/or most industrious of the people present, but his *most* unique contribution has already been made by that point.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jonathan Hartley.
hey moore850
@moore850,
Hey, you make some valid points, and that point of view does have some credibility. But to suggest that it is remotely compelling or important enough to allow bullying corporations strip individuals of their rights of assembly and speech, purely in pursuit of higher profit margins, seems silly to me.
Remember, we are not talking about defending artists here. Organisations like BRIEN are funded by, and act on behalf of the labels, who famously screw the artists out of every dime they possibly can. If they really wanted to help the artists they could start by not ripping them off massive amounts using creative accounting and then only giving them a few % of record sales to pay it back. All they actually want is to line their pockets. So which is more important?
founders unique contribution is...
Isn't a founder's unique contribution the 'decision to execute'? Once that decision is made, and followed up on by cajolling investors and recruiting implementers, then it doesn't really matter what the founding idea was (since any startup needs to be nimble enough to pursue whatever good opportunities they discover along the way). The founder may well be the brightest and/or most industrious of the people present, but his *most* unique contribution has already been made by that point.