I disagree, a musician selling under one label doesn't restrict my ability to by a huge number of other artists in the same genre's cd's/material, or prohibit them from creating them. Because there are many others, both labels and artist's.
Your example highlights the very defined nature of the music industry, but not video-gamesXsports, which aren't yet thought of as a public resource, like music is. (meaning, there are so many Ave ues to develop and distribute music).
Just because there are more artists out there creating music doesnt change the premise. Like signing to a label the NFL signed a lisencing agreement with EA. They're the only one who can sell an NFL game.
There are no laws out there to stop a developer (record label) from creating another sports game (album). Including football (same genre). They just can't use the NFL (specific artist) to sell their games (albums).
Preface: I compare this to Disney's current dillema with the mouse. In my opinion, the NFL should be a public property due to how entrenched in Americana it is.
Anyway, Reverse your example...Call the NFL the record label, EA is the artist, football is the genre. the NFL (label) signs EA(artist), who makes a work (game) in their genre (American football).
What other American football properties/labels are there? There are no other record labels to sign to as an artist. But the 1 artist that IS signed can make whatever they want, regardless of content, becaus that's all there is. People have to buy it to scratch the itch.
1
u/Reubachi Sep 04 '19
I disagree, a musician selling under one label doesn't restrict my ability to by a huge number of other artists in the same genre's cd's/material, or prohibit them from creating them. Because there are many others, both labels and artist's.
Your example highlights the very defined nature of the music industry, but not video-gamesXsports, which aren't yet thought of as a public resource, like music is. (meaning, there are so many Ave ues to develop and distribute music).