"Digital song prices is determined by market forces, and with unlimited supply and limited demand, the price can only fall, because for every demand, there is a supply (and more) to match."
Umm, no, not really. There are two big reasons why you can't apply supply and demand here, and why the prices are not determined solely by supply and demand.
1) Music is not a commodity good. You don't want to download the song from iTunes? You can't replace that song with any other song out there; it has intrinsic qualities that make it more or less desirable to the market.
2) Limited suppliers. You don't want to pay $0.99 at iTunes? Fine, but where are all the other suppliers who could come in and offer you the song for $0.96? Or $0.92? There are not a potentially infinite number of suppliers who are capable of setting their own price on the songs they sell.
Also, people assume that given infinite supply, prices will fall to zero. Not true. Not all supply/demand curves will intersect at P = zero when supply approaches infinity.
"Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
No. Especially if you're one of those few people.
If you don't think it's worth $0.99, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to accept the terms of sale.
Who loses? The seller, by not pricing the good at the ideal price to maximize profits.
Sure, you could argue that fans of the music lose, since they don't have the option of buying it at a lower price... but that's how the market works. Someone offers a price, and people choose whether or not to purchase at that price. If the seller wants to, they can adjust the price. It's a little trickier with a middleman who controls pricing, but look at it this way -- if you choose not to pay $0.99 for something you think is worth only $0.25, well you won, since you didn't overpay for that song.
Are you still thinking that I support the status quo? Do you even bother to read what you respond to, or are you 100% troll?
The entire thread isn't about what's happening, what should happen, whether or not anyone can accept where the market is going. Somehow you are trying to frame it as "I'm right, you're wrong abou the future of the industry" because you can't deal with the basic argument at hand... whether or not music piracy is immoral or not.
It's a common enough tactic, it's called a straw man argument. All it shows is that you've abandoned your argument.
So, basically, your juvenile mind has, by default, accepted that music piracy is immoral... otherwise, you'd be debating that issue, instead of trying to twist my words and change the subject, right?
Let me sum up your argument on the morality of music piracy so far:
1) Well, it's happening, the entire music industry has to change (from producers all the way to artists) to find a new revenue stream. I don't care how, maybe advertising, but me and all my buddies aren't paying for it.
2) The industry is corrupt, so anything I do is OK, because millionaire music producers are teh evil.
3) It's free of cost to make a copy, so therefore I shouldn't have to pay for a copy.
4) The only correct moral alternative is to do what's best for me. Everyone else is doing it, so that akes it OK, right?
Every other little flame you've posted has been to attack a point of mine that either
1) I didn't make, or
2) I made to refute a point of yours that was not germaine to the discussion.
So, if your answer to a morality question is, "If you don't like it, tough, that's the way it is" then you shouldn't have posted any comment about morality at all.
And if you can't justify, in moral terms, your actions, then I think we all can assume that you don't really have any moral justification.
Dude, you are really talking out your ass. You keep trying to make the same invalid points.
First, cultural goods are not a commodity good, and so the law of supply and demand does not apply.
Second, value of a good, even a non-commodity good, is not based upon the marginal cost of production. Since when does any economic theory say that ideal price = marginal cost, even as supply approaches infinity, for a non-commodity good? I'm curious as to where you're pulling you economic theory from, since it barely adheres to Microecon 101 theory, and it even gets that wrong.
" i'm not a communist, i'm proposing the model of television for all electronic media: tv is given away, for free."
Umm, no. No it's not. Some basic TV is given away for free. And frankly, I don't want art to be dependent upon endorsements for survival. Also, free TV is centrally managed and broadcast, and in the past, you couldn't easily avoid the commercials. That's not gonna survive for much longer, have you been paying any attention to the industry news?
Also, re: energy as a commodity good with a marginal cost -- totally not true with solar and wind energy. Marginal cost of the energy is zero. So why isn't it free? Why are you not justified in taking it without paying for it? Wouldn't that teach the energy industry to stop using fossil fuels? It's their fault for not adjusting to the market, after all. And solar energy supply is practically infinite, they could farm it in space. Why haven't they?
"because the current crop of music industry fat cats are the only people your point of view seems to defend"
Are you that thick? Are you so frickin stupid that you can't even read the words I write without going off on some idealogical tirade which makes no real sense, that needs capital letters, as if shouting will convince anyone that what you have to say is gospel?
My point of view is not that the industry is OK as is, which you have assumed over and over, despite my flat out telling you that it is not. My point of view is that you are endorsing the production model, by your purchasing choice, of a product you believe is antiquated and wrong.
But of course, in your twisted world, anyone who disagrees with one thing you say must be a completely amoral industry fatcat who is obviously an idiot because they don't subscribe to your incorrect understanding of how things, such as economics, work.
"same salary, different guy handing him the money. capisce?"
Whose going to hand him the money? Who? The ad companies? The same companies that won't support products with whose message they disagree with? What, do you WANT your music to be censored by ad execs, like TV content is? Or how about having the government step in? Where do you draw the line? Do you make all objectionable material unavailable, or of lower quality, just because the moral majority doesn't like it?
The only way to ensure the content of the art you buy is to pay for it directly. Advertising as the basis of revenue for the music industry is a god-awful thought, we already have enough corporate whores in the art world.
Have you even bothered to think of the societal repercussions of your little idea? Or are you still obsessed with getting your free (as-in-beer) music?
Because that's what your morality is all about... the self.
Oh, and your economic model? It sucks. It doesn't apply to non-commodity goods, and will reduce the amount, type, and quality of product available, which is to me the antithesis of artistic expression.
Your model screws the artists (except for the very few) and screws the listener (because of the dearth of distinctive creative content). Who benefits from your system? Ad execs, and the artists who sell out as corporate shills.
You can't accept the fact that you're still a selfish whiner trying to justify getting stuff for free, and you still won't put your music where your mouth is./Gutless coward
Sorry, didn't see this before responding to your previous one. Didn't address copyright at all in that response, though, so here goes:
If anything, the ease of copying material today actually makes copyright protection more important. [Hold on, I'm gonna justify and qualify that! I'm not an industry shill!].
I believe that there should be a profit incentive to produce art, and that government has a role in supporting artistic endeavors. So how does government support artistic creation without selectively supporting specific artists through direct financing?
By establishing a mechanism by which the market can decide which artists to reward. This keeps the government hands away from censoring content, while still allowing artists to make a living.
This is how copyright came about, though written art was originally the focus. Music, however, is now as duplicable as text, and faces the same issues that text did centuries ago. How do we protect those who create new content, to ensure that they can continue producing?
One way would be to allow private concerns to fund artists, to return to a patronage system. This has it's own problems, censorship being a big one.
Another way would be to apply copyright as it was intended -- for a limited period of time, and only issuable to an individual. That individual could choose to license it to a company, but the copyright could never be held by a company. After x years, or upon death of the copyright holder, the content enters the public domain.
The benefits? The recording companies are beholden to the individual who created the content, ensuring a (more) equitable distribution of profits. The content enters the public domain, ensuring everyone has access to it (though after a period of time). The creator of the content has incentive to create new art, which I believe is a benefit to society.
"[copyright,] which fewer and fewer people feel was ever truly justified"
A big reason for that is the beast that copyright has evolved into. A more traditional copyright would not have people up in arms.
I agree with most of what you're saying, and I think that in the end, DRM will fail. However, you make a couple points that I don't quite agree with:
because the real cost of making a copy of a recording is nearly zero
The real marginal cost is zero. But the real cost is not zero. Real cost includes overhead, the costs of creating the content, etc. For this discussion, I'd even add in marketing costs, as they are relevant to the considerations made by the companies distributing the music, and should probably be considered by the consumer when judging what price is fair.
"Purchasing advance tickets is very similar to pre-ordering a book or CD, and offering pre-orders is a great way to ensure sufficient initial sales to cover the costs of production (including opportunity costs)"
This only works for established artists with an extant high demand for their product -- I don't think it would work for 99% of the artists out there.
"Movies make most of their money in the first few weeks; they often pay for themselves in the opening weekend."
They sometimes pay for themselves on opening weekend. Most movies do not; in fact, most movies don't cover costs from theatrical release -- although some of this is due to creative accounting. This model depends on the occasional blockbuster, which isn't the model I'd want to see for music... I'd hate to have the music industry have the same content problems as the movie industry.
"It isn't even possible to estimate the potential size of the market without taking prices into account, because people who would buy something at one price (free, for example) will often decide it's not worth the cost at a higher price."
Well, the market is the same size -- it's just that a different portion of the market will decide to purchase the good, depending on the price. It's still hard to forecast what the demand curve looks like for any particular song or album though, since music isn't a commodity good.
"recognizing that profit can only occur when both parties agree on the exchange"
Yes, but the problem then is not that people do not accept DRM, and decide not to acquire the good. The problem is that people still purchase the product, albeit not from the legal supplier, without the DRM (I include purchasing for free (sometimes piracy) for this argument). This black market justifies the use of DRM to the suppliers, which just feeds back into the problem.
If all the people who opposed DRM refused to purchase DRMed products from any source, with or without the DRM still attached, then the whole DRM problem would disappear as the industry execs realized they were shooting themselves in the feet.
" you were talking about record producers, now you are talking about soundboard techs making 25K. different people"
Umm, no. You brought up record producers, go back and read my OP.
"the guy who makes the computer game gets paid"
With what money? Do you understand the concept that if an industry is not profitable, it will disappear, as will a great majority of the content you enjoy? You think that cash for producing an album just automagically appears in the wallet of struggling artists? Or do you think that sound techs work for free just in case maybe a minor band can pull in some advertising dough?
"ok, go support your convictions, and i'll stop bitching: sell your car, and ride a train to work."
It's pretty funny that you mention that specific example, because that's exactly what I did.
"according to you, if new technology comes along that makes things better, we can't use it, because it changes how things work. because how things work right now is the only moral way to do things... wtf?!"
More of this making-shit-up from you? wtf? More guessing about my opinions and idealogy? You want stuff for free, so you take it for free. You say you don't want to support a specific industry, but then go ahead and take their products. I got one for you -- if you think your electric company overcharges, do you not pay them for the electricity you you get off the grid? I mean, it's an outdated power creation and distribution system, since they still get the energy from fossil fuels. You should get the eletricity for free, since they could use renewable sources that don't consume raw goods. They could pay for it by advertising revenues on mass-mailings.
You impugn my morality, but won't stand up for your convictions? If you really had morality, instead of just pretending you did to justify getting free music, you wouldn't support the industry you hate... So don't preach to me about your superior morality when it doesn't even exist. When you only listen to music that is offered to you for free by the rightful sellers of the IP, then you can have a leg to stand on.
"is that your morality? defending the status quo?
"
You know, there's a term for when you make shit up about someone else and then attack the shit you made up. They should rename it for you.
I have no problem with change, and I'm not an obstructionist. But I don't think that "Waaah, I want it for free because the industry is corrupt and the artists are ripped off and I should be able to do whatever I want if I can" is a valid justification for pirating music. How about not listening to the music at all if you don't like the terms of sale offered? You want your cake and to eat it too. That's my problem with your so-called morality -- you want to take a stand, but can't deal with the inconvenience of taking a real stand. You enable the recording industry by pirating their music, and supporting artists who sign with them.
You can continue your name-calling, and you can continue putting words in my mouth, and ascribing beliefs to me just because you need some concept to argue against, but the basic premise is:
If you don't agree with the terms of sale offered by a company, don't purchase the good. If you have a fundamental problem with the way an industry operates (for moral reasons), then don't support that industry. By pirating music, you continue to support the industry and the company that offers the good for sale -- since 'lost sales' are a huge arguing point for all the draconian anti-piracy laws that the **AA are pushing through. If you really had any morality, you'd accept the fact that your actions are supporting someone you don't agree with, and change those actions. Really, you're just a whiny baby who likes to grandstand.
If there is collusion among the major labels and big media companies, (which is practically a foregone conclusion, though hard to prove), then I think you're right.
However, that's not a difficulty with the definition of indie, that's a problem with unfair market competitive practices, which is illegal, right?/Not that it makes any difference in practice, since probably not even a well-funded indie label could go toe-to-toe with the **AA or Clearchannel, etc, in court.
"First, as another poster mentioned, the sound engineers, etc. will get paid anyway. They don't get a cut."
Except, of course, that money to pay them needs to come from somewhere, and fledgling bands likely don't have the cash to pay for a top-quality studio album.
"Instead, your customers let you know where it's going to be, and if you don't meet them there, then your competitors eventually will."
You're right, for commodity goods -- the moral choice is buy from any supplier you want for any reason you want. However, if you believe in IP (which I do, and is the crux of the issue), music is not a commodity good, and so competitive analysis is not applicable. Instead, the only choice for product X is buy|not buy at the terms offered, or to negotiate different terms. If you pirate music, you are purchasing counterfeit goods, which are not competitive, and are outside the moral marketplace (again, if you believe in IP).
From my OP: "This is a great opportunity for a well-funded indie label to step up and fill the void, to attract talent by guaranteeing no copy protection."
I thought you missed this part, proposing a solution that works for the artists in the situation you mentioned.
Sorry if I was rude, but it seemed to me that your reply did not even take into account the solution I think is possible -- which implies that you either ignored it or didn't read it, which has been known to happen here on/... sorry if I offended.
"yes... and? is it written somewhere everyone who picks up a guitar deserves six figures? there are a million starving artists in the world, with or without music piracy. red herring"
Read the OP again. I didn't toss that out there.
"i fail to understand why you expect me to feel sympathetic for rich bastards"
Yeah, that soundboard tech making 25k in NYC is a rich bastard./whatever.
"nowhere is it written in the bible or the us constitution that record producers deserve to be millionaires."
Where did I say this? You're putting words in my mouth, stop it. You're also ascribing motives to my stated opinions, stop it. Don't get all worked up over what I said when what you're getting worked up over isn't even remotely close to what I'm saying.
"you expect us to preserve a system where musicians are shafted by record companies"
No. When did I say that? I don't think that the current system is a good one -- but I don't think that distributing all content for free is good either. If you really want to send a message to the recording industry, don't buy the music, don't pirate the music. Boycott it. The artists will get the message, the labels will get the message.
"you are morally inferior to me, attempting to preserve an inferior, more unfair system. more unfair to fans, more unfair to musicians. the only ones who lose in the new world are the fat cats who have none of my sympathy. no moral argument protects their position of priveledge which is fast eroding"
Dude, you have no f-in clue what you're talking about with respect to my opinions. You are trying to categorize my thoughts and opinions according to your view of what all people who think music piracy is wrong think.
Get a fucking clue. If you had any backbone, you wouldn't listen to any artist that chose to have their music distributed by that 'antiquated distribution model' you are so against. If you don't like the product (which, btw, includes distro of the product) don't buy it. YOU are one of the people telling the record companies that there is demand for their crappily distributed product, YOU are on of the people supporting the recording industry by supporting the artists who choose to sign with the big labels.
So take your self-righteous hypocritical BS and go listen to artists who do things the way you want, and stop bitching about people who actually support their convictions.
Oh, and BTW, while you're at it, try not to put words in people's mouths, m'kay?
"Nice sentiment, but all your cards are max'd, your owe your mum thousands, you're eating fast food because that's all you can afford. Someone is offering to pay you to do what you'd do anyway and give you the chance to do it better. It would be hard to say no for most reasons. DRM will be decided by what the consumer shows they'll put up with."
Which I addressed by saying that the labels have the upper hand when dealing with new talent, and saying there is a market for someone to come in with the promise to not use DRM. Please read the whole post before you respond to one of the first sentences.
I think TFA is referring to the current culture of DRM, not the past... for example, what Sony tried to do with the rootkit. This is particularly true now because of the saturation of PMPs like the iPod -- there is no longer the mess of burning a CD (which used to be expensive) or copying a tape (very lossy) in order to listen to pirated music. The market is very different from what it was when Napster busted onto the scene.
There's also more of a disincentive to fileshare copyrighted music today, becaause of all the FUD of filesharing lawsuits, and the poor jerks who got singled out by the **AA for prosecution.
"If the only way you make money currently, as part of a band, is playing live gigs, then having people get all their music from filesharing is actually a good thing, as it increases exposure of your band."
Yes, that's true. But why should a band be able to make money off of album sales instead, or also? There have been some great studio bands, live music is not the only form of acceptable music expression.
This especially applies to people in the market like me. I will never go to a concert, other than a dinner concert with less than 100 people. I can't stand crowds and high-volume performances -- but I am willing to pay for music I enjoy at home.
I'd be willing to bet that the non-concert-going market for music is larger than the concert-going market... why shouldn't great studio bands be able to cash in too?
I don't want a system where the only reason for bands to release albums and songs is to promote concerts.
"ip-synchers in search of landfall profits, maybe their "clients" wouldn't feel so cheated when they paid $15+ for a CD that contains one good song. Good bands/artists are becoming a rare commodity and are being over-shadowed by glitz and glamour."
Absolutely, though we've been down this road before. The reason it's worse now, in the US, is because radio no longer has any variety. The internet may be able to replace the traditional role of radio in exposing new artists, but I find myself looking to the past to find new (to me) music. I have no desire to listen to whatever crap Clearchannel is pushing... now get off my lawn;)
IIRC, there are several very wealthy artists who've started their own labels that don't have ties to the big ones. There's also VC out there for the enterprising businessperson...
A problem is industry lockout... collusion between the big labels to make sure a startup or indie label doesn't get a foot in the door.
"but you don't need 50 cent's money to live large (heh), heck, a couple hundred thou a year from touring gigs is fine
And how many artists are successful enough to make six figures touring? Not many.
"so the future will be the same even with 100% music piracy: bands will just make cash from touring gigs and advertising"
And what about everyone elso who is involved with producing the music? All the people who work in the studio, all the people who work on distro, all the people who make an album happen? Do you think that only musicians who self-finance should be able to succeed? How about all the money it takes to get a band to the point where touring becomes profitable? Because the jump from playing small bars to big venues is a huge one, and requires some serious capital.
"it's not morality, repeat IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF MORALITY TO PIRATE MUSIC"
Well, that depends on your morals, now doesn't it? If your morality doesn't account for all the people who worked to make the product you want to listen to (sound engineers, etc), then sure, it's not a question of morality. If your morality doesn't account for the validity of the marketplace, then sure, it's not a question of morality.
Me, I don't like concerts. I can't frickin stand the crowds or the volume. The only way I can support an artist I like is to either send them money directly, or purchase their album (yeah, I know they make crap off album sales).
A lot of bands are doing that, but there's still good reason to sign to a label -- marketing and promo. This is what labels really do for an artist, and if it's a good label, you'll get value for your money. Plus, you get the benefit (sometimes a benefit, anyway) of being associated with an imprint's other artists.
" Um, we are listening to your music. We're just not paying. That's the point.
"
No, that's not the point. The point is that the less net-savvy people are not listening to the music, since they can't download it to their iPod due to copy protection.
Did you read TFA, or are you just spouting garbage because you feel so proud of yourself for getting songs for free?
"Luckily, my band's recently released album, "Oh No," escaped copy control, but only narrowly. When our album came out, our label's parent company, EMI, was testing protective software and thought we were a good candidate for it."
Problem: Major record labels (or their parent companies) want to force copy protection onto the albums of their talent.
Solution: Don't sign with one of those labels, or make sure your contract includes stipulations that your albums will not have copy protection.
This opinion article is indicative of increasing artist awareness of how copy protection will hurt them -- the difficulty is that the labels still have more bargaining power for upcoming talent.
This is a great opportunity for a well-funded indie label to step up and fill the void, to attract talent by guaranteeing no copy protection.
If someone demonstrates to the major labels that it's beneficial to not require copy protection, they may follow suit -- though I'd speculate that copy protection is all about making sure the record-buying public still sees free copying & downloading as 'wrong.' What they'd really hate to see is most musinc 'consumers' feeling that it is normal and 100% acceptable to get all their music from filesharing.
It is concerned that other as yet unknown creatures may go extinct before their existence can be documented.
"So IT IS decided that these animals will go extinct is it?Documentaion of them is the main concern?!! huh."
Well, yes, documentation is a concern. We don't know how many species have already gone extinct without any knowledge of them. It's also understood that awareness of a species is the first step to taking action to ensure that that species survives.
And if you can't stop the extinction, isn't collecting knowledge a worthwhile pursuit?
Seems like/. could take a lesson then... Don't get me wrong, but a lot of articles that get accepted seem to do so only for their potential to get massive amounts of indignant comments. Of course, there are still some good articles in the mix...
FTA: "I'm on Chapter 8 and there are -- let me check -- 12 chapters. It's a tough game. It was two in the morning so I said the heck with it and I shut it off and I went to bed," St. Hilaire says" (emphasis mine)
Hah. 2 AM? Wat a n00b. My grandma racks up frags at 4 AM with 1337 skilz, yo -- that's hard core.
Slashdot Mirror
"Digital song prices is determined by market forces, and with unlimited supply and limited demand, the price can only fall, because for every demand, there is a supply (and more) to match."
Umm, no, not really. There are two big reasons why you can't apply supply and demand here, and why the prices are not determined solely by supply and demand.
1) Music is not a commodity good. You don't want to download the song from iTunes? You can't replace that song with any other song out there; it has intrinsic qualities that make it more or less desirable to the market.
2) Limited suppliers. You don't want to pay $0.99 at iTunes? Fine, but where are all the other suppliers who could come in and offer you the song for $0.96? Or $0.92? There are not a potentially infinite number of suppliers who are capable of setting their own price on the songs they sell.
Also, people assume that given infinite supply, prices will fall to zero. Not true. Not all supply/demand curves will intersect at P = zero when supply approaches infinity.
"Tiered pricing, supply-and-demand pricing (hey economist guy: the supply is unlimited!)"
So what if supply is constant, or unlimited? That just removes one of the conditions for ideal pricing.
Pricing based on demand is not invalidated at all.
"Isn't 99 cents too much to pay for music that appeals to just a few people?"
No. Especially if you're one of those few people.
If you don't think it's worth $0.99, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to accept the terms of sale.
Who loses? The seller, by not pricing the good at the ideal price to maximize profits.
Sure, you could argue that fans of the music lose, since they don't have the option of buying it at a lower price... but that's how the market works. Someone offers a price, and people choose whether or not to purchase at that price. If the seller wants to, they can adjust the price. It's a little trickier with a middleman who controls pricing, but look at it this way -- if you choose not to pay $0.99 for something you think is worth only $0.25, well you won, since you didn't overpay for that song.
"who wins genius?"
Are you still thinking that I support the status quo? Do you even bother to read what you respond to, or are you 100% troll?
The entire thread isn't about what's happening, what should happen, whether or not anyone can accept where the market is going. Somehow you are trying to frame it as "I'm right, you're wrong abou the future of the industry" because you can't deal with the basic argument at hand... whether or not music piracy is immoral or not.
It's a common enough tactic, it's called a straw man argument. All it shows is that you've abandoned your argument.
So, basically, your juvenile mind has, by default, accepted that music piracy is immoral... otherwise, you'd be debating that issue, instead of trying to twist my words and change the subject, right?
Let me sum up your argument on the morality of music piracy so far:
1) Well, it's happening, the entire music industry has to change (from producers all the way to artists) to find a new revenue stream. I don't care how, maybe advertising, but me and all my buddies aren't paying for it.
2) The industry is corrupt, so anything I do is OK, because millionaire music producers are teh evil.
3) It's free of cost to make a copy, so therefore I shouldn't have to pay for a copy.
4) The only correct moral alternative is to do what's best for me. Everyone else is doing it, so that akes it OK, right?
Every other little flame you've posted has been to attack a point of mine that either
1) I didn't make, or
2) I made to refute a point of yours that was not germaine to the discussion.
So, if your answer to a morality question is, "If you don't like it, tough, that's the way it is" then you shouldn't have posted any comment about morality at all.
And if you can't justify, in moral terms, your actions, then I think we all can assume that you don't really have any moral justification.
Dude, you are really talking out your ass. You keep trying to make the same invalid points.
/Gutless coward
First, cultural goods are not a commodity good, and so the law of supply and demand does not apply.
Second, value of a good, even a non-commodity good, is not based upon the marginal cost of production. Since when does any economic theory say that ideal price = marginal cost, even as supply approaches infinity, for a non-commodity good? I'm curious as to where you're pulling you economic theory from, since it barely adheres to Microecon 101 theory, and it even gets that wrong.
" i'm not a communist, i'm proposing the model of television for all electronic media: tv is given away, for free."
Umm, no. No it's not. Some basic TV is given away for free. And frankly, I don't want art to be dependent upon endorsements for survival. Also, free TV is centrally managed and broadcast, and in the past, you couldn't easily avoid the commercials. That's not gonna survive for much longer, have you been paying any attention to the industry news?
Also, re: energy as a commodity good with a marginal cost -- totally not true with solar and wind energy. Marginal cost of the energy is zero. So why isn't it free? Why are you not justified in taking it without paying for it? Wouldn't that teach the energy industry to stop using fossil fuels? It's their fault for not adjusting to the market, after all. And solar energy supply is practically infinite, they could farm it in space. Why haven't they?
"because the current crop of music industry fat cats are the only people your point of view seems to defend"
Are you that thick? Are you so frickin stupid that you can't even read the words I write without going off on some idealogical tirade which makes no real sense, that needs capital letters, as if shouting will convince anyone that what you have to say is gospel?
My point of view is not that the industry is OK as is, which you have assumed over and over, despite my flat out telling you that it is not. My point of view is that you are endorsing the production model, by your purchasing choice, of a product you believe is antiquated and wrong.
But of course, in your twisted world, anyone who disagrees with one thing you say must be a completely amoral industry fatcat who is obviously an idiot because they don't subscribe to your incorrect understanding of how things, such as economics, work.
"same salary, different guy handing him the money. capisce?"
Whose going to hand him the money? Who? The ad companies? The same companies that won't support products with whose message they disagree with? What, do you WANT your music to be censored by ad execs, like TV content is? Or how about having the government step in? Where do you draw the line? Do you make all objectionable material unavailable, or of lower quality, just because the moral majority doesn't like it?
The only way to ensure the content of the art you buy is to pay for it directly. Advertising as the basis of revenue for the music industry is a god-awful thought, we already have enough corporate whores in the art world.
Have you even bothered to think of the societal repercussions of your little idea? Or are you still obsessed with getting your free (as-in-beer) music?
Because that's what your morality is all about... the self.
Oh, and your economic model? It sucks. It doesn't apply to non-commodity goods, and will reduce the amount, type, and quality of product available, which is to me the antithesis of artistic expression.
Your model screws the artists (except for the very few) and screws the listener (because of the dearth of distinctive creative content). Who benefits from your system? Ad execs, and the artists who sell out as corporate shills.
You can't accept the fact that you're still a selfish whiner trying to justify getting stuff for free, and you still won't put your music where your mouth is.
Sorry, didn't see this before responding to your previous one. Didn't address copyright at all in that response, though, so here goes:
If anything, the ease of copying material today actually makes copyright protection more important. [Hold on, I'm gonna justify and qualify that! I'm not an industry shill!].
I believe that there should be a profit incentive to produce art, and that government has a role in supporting artistic endeavors. So how does government support artistic creation without selectively supporting specific artists through direct financing?
By establishing a mechanism by which the market can decide which artists to reward. This keeps the government hands away from censoring content, while still allowing artists to make a living.
This is how copyright came about, though written art was originally the focus. Music, however, is now as duplicable as text, and faces the same issues that text did centuries ago. How do we protect those who create new content, to ensure that they can continue producing?
One way would be to allow private concerns to fund artists, to return to a patronage system. This has it's own problems, censorship being a big one.
Another way would be to apply copyright as it was intended -- for a limited period of time, and only issuable to an individual. That individual could choose to license it to a company, but the copyright could never be held by a company. After x years, or upon death of the copyright holder, the content enters the public domain.
The benefits? The recording companies are beholden to the individual who created the content, ensuring a (more) equitable distribution of profits. The content enters the public domain, ensuring everyone has access to it (though after a period of time). The creator of the content has incentive to create new art, which I believe is a benefit to society.
"[copyright,] which fewer and fewer people feel was ever truly justified"
A big reason for that is the beast that copyright has evolved into. A more traditional copyright would not have people up in arms.
I agree with most of what you're saying, and I think that in the end, DRM will fail. However, you make a couple points that I don't quite agree with:
because the real cost of making a copy of a recording is nearly zero
The real marginal cost is zero. But the real cost is not zero. Real cost includes overhead, the costs of creating the content, etc. For this discussion, I'd even add in marketing costs, as they are relevant to the considerations made by the companies distributing the music, and should probably be considered by the consumer when judging what price is fair.
"Purchasing advance tickets is very similar to pre-ordering a book or CD, and offering pre-orders is a great way to ensure sufficient initial sales to cover the costs of production (including opportunity costs)"
This only works for established artists with an extant high demand for their product -- I don't think it would work for 99% of the artists out there.
"Movies make most of their money in the first few weeks; they often pay for themselves in the opening weekend."
They sometimes pay for themselves on opening weekend. Most movies do not; in fact, most movies don't cover costs from theatrical release -- although some of this is due to creative accounting. This model depends on the occasional blockbuster, which isn't the model I'd want to see for music... I'd hate to have the music industry have the same content problems as the movie industry.
"It isn't even possible to estimate the potential size of the market without taking prices into account, because people who would buy something at one price (free, for example) will often decide it's not worth the cost at a higher price."
Well, the market is the same size -- it's just that a different portion of the market will decide to purchase the good, depending on the price. It's still hard to forecast what the demand curve looks like for any particular song or album though, since music isn't a commodity good.
"recognizing that profit can only occur when both parties agree on the exchange"
Yes, but the problem then is not that people do not accept DRM, and decide not to acquire the good. The problem is that people still purchase the product, albeit not from the legal supplier, without the DRM (I include purchasing for free (sometimes piracy) for this argument). This black market justifies the use of DRM to the suppliers, which just feeds back into the problem.
If all the people who opposed DRM refused to purchase DRMed products from any source, with or without the DRM still attached, then the whole DRM problem would disappear as the industry execs realized they were shooting themselves in the feet.
Thanks, too bad I can't get it on my commute (via train) :)
Streaming radio is pretty much the only place I turn for new music, I'll check it out sometime this week.
" you were talking about record producers, now you are talking about soundboard techs making 25K. different people"
Umm, no. You brought up record producers, go back and read my OP.
"the guy who makes the computer game gets paid"
With what money? Do you understand the concept that if an industry is not profitable, it will disappear, as will a great majority of the content you enjoy? You think that cash for producing an album just automagically appears in the wallet of struggling artists? Or do you think that sound techs work for free just in case maybe a minor band can pull in some advertising dough?
"ok, go support your convictions, and i'll stop bitching: sell your car, and ride a train to work."
It's pretty funny that you mention that specific example, because that's exactly what I did.
"according to you, if new technology comes along that makes things better, we can't use it, because it changes how things work. because how things work right now is the only moral way to do things... wtf?!"
More of this making-shit-up from you? wtf? More guessing about my opinions and idealogy? You want stuff for free, so you take it for free. You say you don't want to support a specific industry, but then go ahead and take their products. I got one for you -- if you think your electric company overcharges, do you not pay them for the electricity you you get off the grid? I mean, it's an outdated power creation and distribution system, since they still get the energy from fossil fuels. You should get the eletricity for free, since they could use renewable sources that don't consume raw goods. They could pay for it by advertising revenues on mass-mailings.
You impugn my morality, but won't stand up for your convictions? If you really had morality, instead of just pretending you did to justify getting free music, you wouldn't support the industry you hate... So don't preach to me about your superior morality when it doesn't even exist. When you only listen to music that is offered to you for free by the rightful sellers of the IP, then you can have a leg to stand on.
"is that your morality? defending the status quo? "
You know, there's a term for when you make shit up about someone else and then attack the shit you made up. They should rename it for you.
I have no problem with change, and I'm not an obstructionist. But I don't think that "Waaah, I want it for free because the industry is corrupt and the artists are ripped off and I should be able to do whatever I want if I can" is a valid justification for pirating music. How about not listening to the music at all if you don't like the terms of sale offered? You want your cake and to eat it too. That's my problem with your so-called morality -- you want to take a stand, but can't deal with the inconvenience of taking a real stand. You enable the recording industry by pirating their music, and supporting artists who sign with them.
You can continue your name-calling, and you can continue putting words in my mouth, and ascribing beliefs to me just because you need some concept to argue against, but the basic premise is:
If you don't agree with the terms of sale offered by a company, don't purchase the good. If you have a fundamental problem with the way an industry operates (for moral reasons), then don't support that industry. By pirating music, you continue to support the industry and the company that offers the good for sale -- since 'lost sales' are a huge arguing point for all the draconian anti-piracy laws that the **AA are pushing through. If you really had any morality, you'd accept the fact that your actions are supporting someone you don't agree with, and change those actions. Really, you're just a whiny baby who likes to grandstand.
If there is collusion among the major labels and big media companies, (which is practically a foregone conclusion, though hard to prove), then I think you're right.
/Not that it makes any difference in practice, since probably not even a well-funded indie label could go toe-to-toe with the **AA or Clearchannel, etc, in court.
However, that's not a difficulty with the definition of indie, that's a problem with unfair market competitive practices, which is illegal, right?
"First, as another poster mentioned, the sound engineers, etc. will get paid anyway. They don't get a cut."
Except, of course, that money to pay them needs to come from somewhere, and fledgling bands likely don't have the cash to pay for a top-quality studio album.
"Instead, your customers let you know where it's going to be, and if you don't meet them there, then your competitors eventually will."
You're right, for commodity goods -- the moral choice is buy from any supplier you want for any reason you want. However, if you believe in IP (which I do, and is the crux of the issue), music is not a commodity good, and so competitive analysis is not applicable. Instead, the only choice for product X is buy|not buy at the terms offered, or to negotiate different terms. If you pirate music, you are purchasing counterfeit goods, which are not competitive, and are outside the moral marketplace (again, if you believe in IP).
From my OP: "This is a great opportunity for a well-funded indie label to step up and fill the void, to attract talent by guaranteeing no copy protection."
/... sorry if I offended.
I thought you missed this part, proposing a solution that works for the artists in the situation you mentioned.
Sorry if I was rude, but it seemed to me that your reply did not even take into account the solution I think is possible -- which implies that you either ignored it or didn't read it, which has been known to happen here on
J
"yes... and? is it written somewhere everyone who picks up a guitar deserves six figures? there are a million starving artists in the world, with or without music piracy. red herring"
/whatever.
Read the OP again. I didn't toss that out there.
"i fail to understand why you expect me to feel sympathetic for rich bastards"
Yeah, that soundboard tech making 25k in NYC is a rich bastard.
"nowhere is it written in the bible or the us constitution that record producers deserve to be millionaires."
Where did I say this? You're putting words in my mouth, stop it. You're also ascribing motives to my stated opinions, stop it. Don't get all worked up over what I said when what you're getting worked up over isn't even remotely close to what I'm saying.
"you expect us to preserve a system where musicians are shafted by record companies"
No. When did I say that? I don't think that the current system is a good one -- but I don't think that distributing all content for free is good either. If you really want to send a message to the recording industry, don't buy the music, don't pirate the music. Boycott it. The artists will get the message, the labels will get the message.
"you are morally inferior to me, attempting to preserve an inferior, more unfair system. more unfair to fans, more unfair to musicians. the only ones who lose in the new world are the fat cats who have none of my sympathy. no moral argument protects their position of priveledge which is fast eroding"
Dude, you have no f-in clue what you're talking about with respect to my opinions. You are trying to categorize my thoughts and opinions according to your view of what all people who think music piracy is wrong think.
Get a fucking clue. If you had any backbone, you wouldn't listen to any artist that chose to have their music distributed by that 'antiquated distribution model' you are so against. If you don't like the product (which, btw, includes distro of the product) don't buy it. YOU are one of the people telling the record companies that there is demand for their crappily distributed product, YOU are on of the people supporting the recording industry by supporting the artists who choose to sign with the big labels.
So take your self-righteous hypocritical BS and go listen to artists who do things the way you want, and stop bitching about people who actually support their convictions.
Oh, and BTW, while you're at it, try not to put words in people's mouths, m'kay?
"Nice sentiment, but all your cards are max'd, your owe your mum thousands, you're eating fast food because that's all you can afford. Someone is offering to pay you to do what you'd do anyway and give you the chance to do it better. It would be hard to say no for most reasons. DRM will be decided by what the consumer shows they'll put up with."
Which I addressed by saying that the labels have the upper hand when dealing with new talent, and saying there is a market for someone to come in with the promise to not use DRM. Please read the whole post before you respond to one of the first sentences.
I think TFA is referring to the current culture of DRM, not the past... for example, what Sony tried to do with the rootkit. This is particularly true now because of the saturation of PMPs like the iPod -- there is no longer the mess of burning a CD (which used to be expensive) or copying a tape (very lossy) in order to listen to pirated music. The market is very different from what it was when Napster busted onto the scene.
There's also more of a disincentive to fileshare copyrighted music today, becaause of all the FUD of filesharing lawsuits, and the poor jerks who got singled out by the **AA for prosecution.
"If the only way you make money currently, as part of a band, is playing live gigs, then having people get all their music from filesharing is actually a good thing, as it increases exposure of your band."
Yes, that's true. But why should a band be able to make money off of album sales instead, or also? There have been some great studio bands, live music is not the only form of acceptable music expression.
This especially applies to people in the market like me. I will never go to a concert, other than a dinner concert with less than 100 people. I can't stand crowds and high-volume performances -- but I am willing to pay for music I enjoy at home.
I'd be willing to bet that the non-concert-going market for music is larger than the concert-going market... why shouldn't great studio bands be able to cash in too?
I don't want a system where the only reason for bands to release albums and songs is to promote concerts.
"ip-synchers in search of landfall profits, maybe their "clients" wouldn't feel so cheated when they paid $15+ for a CD that contains one good song. Good bands/artists are becoming a rare commodity and are being over-shadowed by glitz and glamour."
;)
Absolutely, though we've been down this road before. The reason it's worse now, in the US, is because radio no longer has any variety. The internet may be able to replace the traditional role of radio in exposing new artists, but I find myself looking to the past to find new (to me) music. I have no desire to listen to whatever crap Clearchannel is pushing... now get off my lawn
IIRC, there are several very wealthy artists who've started their own labels that don't have ties to the big ones. There's also VC out there for the enterprising businessperson...
A problem is industry lockout... collusion between the big labels to make sure a startup or indie label doesn't get a foot in the door.
"but you don't need 50 cent's money to live large (heh), heck, a couple hundred thou a year from touring gigs is fine
And how many artists are successful enough to make six figures touring? Not many.
"so the future will be the same even with 100% music piracy: bands will just make cash from touring gigs and advertising"
And what about everyone elso who is involved with producing the music? All the people who work in the studio, all the people who work on distro, all the people who make an album happen? Do you think that only musicians who self-finance should be able to succeed? How about all the money it takes to get a band to the point where touring becomes profitable? Because the jump from playing small bars to big venues is a huge one, and requires some serious capital.
"it's not morality, repeat IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF MORALITY TO PIRATE MUSIC"
Well, that depends on your morals, now doesn't it? If your morality doesn't account for all the people who worked to make the product you want to listen to (sound engineers, etc), then sure, it's not a question of morality. If your morality doesn't account for the validity of the marketplace, then sure, it's not a question of morality.
Me, I don't like concerts. I can't frickin stand the crowds or the volume. The only way I can support an artist I like is to either send them money directly, or purchase their album (yeah, I know they make crap off album sales).
A lot of bands are doing that, but there's still good reason to sign to a label -- marketing and promo. This is what labels really do for an artist, and if it's a good label, you'll get value for your money. Plus, you get the benefit (sometimes a benefit, anyway) of being associated with an imprint's other artists.
" Um, we are listening to your music. We're just not paying. That's the point. "
No, that's not the point. The point is that the less net-savvy people are not listening to the music, since they can't download it to their iPod due to copy protection.
Did you read TFA, or are you just spouting garbage because you feel so proud of yourself for getting songs for free?
"Luckily, my band's recently released album, "Oh No," escaped copy control, but only narrowly. When our album came out, our label's parent company, EMI, was testing protective software and thought we were a good candidate for it."
Problem: Major record labels (or their parent companies) want to force copy protection onto the albums of their talent.
Solution: Don't sign with one of those labels, or make sure your contract includes stipulations that your albums will not have copy protection.
This opinion article is indicative of increasing artist awareness of how copy protection will hurt them -- the difficulty is that the labels still have more bargaining power for upcoming talent.
This is a great opportunity for a well-funded indie label to step up and fill the void, to attract talent by guaranteeing no copy protection.
If someone demonstrates to the major labels that it's beneficial to not require copy protection, they may follow suit -- though I'd speculate that copy protection is all about making sure the record-buying public still sees free copying & downloading as 'wrong.' What they'd really hate to see is most musinc 'consumers' feeling that it is normal and 100% acceptable to get all their music from filesharing.
"So IT IS decided that these animals will go extinct is it?Documentaion of them is the main concern?!! huh."
Well, yes, documentation is a concern. We don't know how many species have already gone extinct without any knowledge of them. It's also understood that awareness of a species is the first step to taking action to ensure that that species survives.
And if you can't stop the extinction, isn't collecting knowledge a worthwhile pursuit?
Seems like /. could take a lesson then... Don't get me wrong, but a lot of articles that get accepted seem to do so only for their potential to get massive amounts of indignant comments. Of course, there are still some good articles in the mix...
"Old Grandma Hard Core?"
/I loves my grandma, and her cookies.
FTA: "I'm on Chapter 8 and there are -- let me check -- 12 chapters. It's a tough game. It was two in the morning so I said the heck with it and I shut it off and I went to bed," St. Hilaire says" (emphasis mine)
Hah. 2 AM? Wat a n00b. My grandma racks up frags at 4 AM with 1337 skilz, yo -- that's hard core.