Slashdot Mirror
Economics of File-Sharing
Umair writes "The Red Herring's got an article by me about the economics of file-sharing, which argues that the music industry should provide insurance...against itself. This is because the contract listeners sign with labels is risky - it lets labels shirk on their end of the bargain. That's why file-sharing isn't just 'theft', it's risk-sharing.
The original, longer, version of the paper is here, which argues that this a situation economists call double moral hazard."
Both of the linked articles make a compelling case that consumers embraced file-sharing as a form of insurance in a situation of moral hazard. What the articles don't explain is why consumers would be willing to move away from file-sharing toward any of the various proposed contracts.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
BTW, has anyone recieved their settlement check?
What if, for business reasons, the labels are more interested in their own economies of scale and brand identity than providing listeners with music they value?
I don't think the music labels are big on making themselves a brand identity. Aside from text in music videos, and small icons on cds, they are not recognizable to most. A brand identity implies that everyone knows the brand, even if they have never used the product. Coke can be classified in this way, since it is one of the most recognizable logos around. -Kilka
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -Chomsky
I'm not trying to slam on you, but you didn't read either of the articles so set yourself up. You don't understand the principal agent problem or what he means by moral hazard. When economists talk about moral hazard, they're speaking of incentives, not about going to hell. And risk sharing in this manifestation is something you're supposed to like--it upsets the labels not consumers.
The problem is with the way we buy music, but have no ability to return it if it sucks. So the music industry has no incentive to make the product satisfactory, so long as they can find a way to get us to buy it (albeit making the song good is a good way to make us buy it). So music pirates' response to this is a form of risk sharing--We diversify the risk of a song sucking over everyone who downloads it. Because we have pooled our resources and invested less in any one product, we have less unique risk (from bad mp3s). It's not a very good analogy, but it makes some sense.
This is bullcrap. If I don't care and feel no moral object to downloading music, why would 'risk-sharing' upset me. I don't even know what risk sharing is!
The moral impact of downloading music for me is ZERO, in spite of what some MBA monkey tells me. 'Risk sharing' isn't going to scare me into sharing less.
I understand the author cites Risk Sharing as a primary reason why people aren't buying music. Read the article, and you can see some definite implications of record companies' misjudgements.
The author claims that the reason why people aren't buying music is that because they don't know whether it is any good. This risk, the risk that the music you just bought for $18 totally sucks, is the risk he talks about.
When he says that people are mitigating risk via file-sharing (i.e. risk-sharing) he implies that by one person buying the cd (or taking some other cost to self, including risk of legal action) and distributing it to others, then others get to "try" the music without risk.
Of course, this brings up the fundamental problem which I believe lies within--Are people willing to pay for music? Currently Steve Jobs and others are trying to prove their particular answer.
The business model works like this:
1. Create catchy sounding music by whatever means necessary, doesn't need to be original or high quality, just needs a hook.
2. Play it on the radio and tv, push the musicians into the public eye with advertising
3. Clubs, shops, other tv/radio stations etc will start playing the song because everyone else is, at this point you have successfully made a 'hit'
4. Sell, rake in profit
After a set number of years a song will have left most peoples memories so it can be 're-released' using its original familiarity to create an instant hit, you must make sure that the re-release or re-mix has an extra underlaying beat or melody or is faster or louder so that the original pales in comparison and people will buy the new song, alternatively parts of the melody can be broken down and re-used as scrap - you will probably notice scrap melody in anything by Blue or Justin Timberlake and many others - it sounds like something you've heard before but you just cant put your finger on it.
And remember the all time rule of the entertainment industry: If it worked the first time, do it another 10
(Big Brother, PopStars, Making the Band, Generic boy/girl bands that all sound the same, teenage girls that all sound the same, Changing [rooms|places|clothes|wives], Im a celebrity [insert something here], The worlds worst x, something island x, Airport/Cruiseliner/Hospital/Cops)
PS as a brit im really sorry for Popstars, but here we now have Fame Academy 2! its much worse and they dont even have that cool guy that tells everyone they're shit. I think we just finished Big Brother 3
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.