This case study's argument is for music copyrights as it shows that giving music out for free helps spreads the word faster and gets the artist more noticed. It shows that by giving free money doesn't always results in poor outcomes instead more profit is made if music is given alway as it will ensure that his voice will be heard. Many may argue that this means artists could lose out in a lot of profit if music is given out for free, however this case study shows that making more profit can also be the case as it shows that his music has also been downloaded many times. Having given out his free music this has enabled fans to create music videos, cover versions, artworks and many more which has helped in getting his music out there more, ensuring a bigger audience.
I also agree with this method and think that it is a clever and better way of getting music out to fans. By having his music out there for free encourages more people to listen to it which gets him out there. It also helps as fans can then use his music to create music videos, cover versions and so on. Therefore, giving him a worldwide audience which then can lead to more profit as people from different places/county download his song. However, I do believe there is negative side to this. That being he could lose out on profit since he is giving his music out for free which might prevent people from buying it. But as proven by Coulton, free music could also be seen as positive.
Here is evidence of how worldwide he has gotten (the views) by giving out his music for free:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxNmeMklFk8
No comments:
Post a Comment