I'm still not convinced on the Value-Price argument. A song has inherent value that doesn't depend on how scarce or hard to replace it is. Music is tied to us for emotional value, and that won't be diminished by the fact that I don't have to worry about breaking a CD or losing an authorization key. The song will not be less valuable to me because it's always available. Nor can it be "replaced" in the sense that some other song could readily usurp it's value, the way you might replace a microwave or a used bike.
Additionally, demand is not going to drive the price anywhere because, as a digital good, it's an abundant resource. If a million people download the song, it doesn't* make it less available for the million-and-first person. (There are certain technological restraints based on bandwidth and available download sources, but for our purposes these things can generally be ignored.)
Now, the language bit wasn't mine, but there's one point I want to pick at. You say, "Even in Techduh terms, an artist can only produce a certain number of songs in a lifetime, and as such, the songs are a rarity and valuable." Now, as noted, I agree that songs are valuable, but I disagree on their rarity. That is to say, a song is scarce before it is recorded -- it's "rare" in that one he could write/perform it, etc. Once it's been recorded, though, it becomes abundant because that recording can be replicated infinitely at zero cost. I don't believe this has killed value, as the song has value (or not) based on it's own intrinsic qualities. The point is, if you want to "sell" music, you have to sell the creation of music, since that's scarce, not copies of recordings.
Also, there's more differentiation that isn't being accounted for. Access to Artist A isn't the same as Access to Artist B. So you won't have "50 million of these things", you'll have a number of different artists offering similar but differentiated products. It doesn't matter if there are 50 million "limited edition box sets" if I'm only concerned with a pool of 250.
You're neglecting the fact that people WANT to support artists. Yeah, Joe Schmoe could complie a cheaper box set, but if buying from him doesn't support the artist, then fans won't buy from him.
Actually, if it turns out to be not enough people, the ARTIST failed, not the model. Either they didn't offer something people wanted, or they just weren't that good. If you're selling something no one wants, you'll fail.
Not sure what you mean by "anything that doesn't have fans the way music does." I mean, there are fans of authors (Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, John Hodgman), and there are fans of software companies (Bioware, Blizzard, Google), and there are fans of actors (Sean Penn, Niel Patrick Harris, Christian Bale). There are even fans of directors/producers (Joss Wheadon, Peter Jackson, the Wachowski brothers). I guess no one's really a "fan" of, say, Verizon or Baltimore Gas and Electric, but they offer a tangible service so I doubt they'll be affected by abundant markets any time soon. (Of course, I know people who are violently loyal to Verizon or Apple, to the point that they make financially-suboptimal choices, so maybe that counts as being a "fan"...)
Actually, you SHOULDN'T buy something you don't want. If you want to support the artist, and they're smart, they'll either offer you something you do want to buy or let you give them money directly. There's no reason for them to not sell you a CD, just because the tracks are free, for example.
The idea isn't "how can we get music for free," but "how do we deal with music being free." Because music IS free. On the pessimistic side, you're music is being pirated and you have to address that -- threatening your fans probably isn't a good idea. On the other hand, piracy aside, if other bands start doing this (and they are), THEIR music is free, so how do you compete with them? They're getting a lot more exposure than a band who requires an upfront fee for the privelidge of their music.
Once I make the pizza, you can have as much as you want (as can everyone else). But I'm not making new pizza until I'm paid for it. If I've already been paid to make a sausage pizza, what do I care what happens to it? Also, if you want me to make fresh pizza, you'll need to pay additional for that, and only so many people can get it while it's fresh (there's only so much room in my shop).
Once I make a song, you can share it as much as you want. But I'm not making a new song until I'm paid for it. Once I've been paid to make a particular song, what do I care what happens to it? Also, if you want me to perform live music, you'll need to pay additional for that, and only so many people can enjoy a live performance (there's only so many seats in a venue).
Value and price are not directly related, but they are connected in an elastic sort of a way. If price goes way up, it naturally will pull value up with it (trailing indicator). In the same manner, if value is lost, price is dragged down as a result.
There's a flaw here. You say that price drags value around, then turn around and say that value drags prive around. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that value is the more-fixed quality; you can't make people value something more just by raising the price. When gas prices go up, people buy less gas because it's not worth that much to them. When gas prices go down, people don't stop buying gas.
Anyways, your music apocalypse, where all music sinks to the quality of garage bands, doesn't make any sense at all. Why would talented people because less talented simply because other people are bad at what they do? The Greats of the past aren't worse musicians because SOME people chose to make commercial jingles. And even if lots of people make vapid, poorly-composed music, that doesn't mean there won't be ANYONE who has something meaningful to express and the talent to do it well. And they will shine brighter for all the mediocrity around them -- and people will VALUE their art more because of the rest of the drivel being made. And when people value something, they're willing to give up their money for it; the trick is finding a way to capture that money people WANT to give you.
The models discussed on Techdirt try to address just that scenario.
If the people downloading it are in large part the same people paying for it
And there's the assumption you're making that they won't. they'll see 100k movie-goers and 100k downloads and complain that they lost 1/2 their profits.
So far, no one has given me any reason strong enough, or "right" enough to justify me willingly backing an idea that would take money out of my pocket.
As a point of fact, if it isn't in your pocket to begin with, then no one's taking it out of your pocket. What's the difference between Microsoft not using your music now (and thus not paying you) and Microsoft using your music for free (with authorization)? In neither case does anyone give you money, but in the second case you DO get exposure. So in which scenario are you, the songwriter, better off?
"I wonder why it seems to almost SOLELY be handled in civil court, then?"
Because criminal court has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil cases don't have such high standards, you just have to prove that someone is possibly guilty.
"The torrents do not provide any compensation to the content producers, and that is my problem."
What about, as is the case with many, the producers aren't LOOKING for compensation from the torrents? Look no further than Trent Reznor for an example; he's been seeding NIN torrents for a while now. Other artists, from film producers to photographers to authors -- use torrents to get their works out there. No, giving away EVERYTHING can't be the whole of your business model, but torrents are only wrong if they're unauthorized, infringing torrents.
"There is no difference between stealing whether the goods stolen are real, or digital."
And I hold that's the fundamental error you're making. there is a difference because theft only occurs when someone is denied their rightful property. In the case of unauthorized downloading, EVERYONE has the digital goods, no one is being denied it. What's being denied is an exclusive right to copy, but that's copyright infringement, NOT theft.
Steals it? Now, I dopn't agree with unauthorized downloading, but how exactly do you think these torrents get out there in the first place?
If some guy goes out and buys a DVD, he paid for it, right? Now, if he cracks the encryption and puts the digital files on his computer, he's infringed on copyright (he doesn't have the right to copy it), but he hasn't STOLEN anything. And if he gives copies of that cracked DVD away, the people he gives it to aren't STEALING, not from him and not from the copyright holders. Copyright is being infringed on by this guy making unauthorized copies of the DVD he bought, but no THEFT has occured.
You're cherry-picking. there's been no proof that filesharing hurts the industry. There IS proof that *actual material theft* hurts businesses. There's a HUGE difference here between abundant digital goods and real property, like a car or bananas. your refusal to admit that difference doesn't change the facts.
By the way, does this mean we can post her music to our site without crediting her now, too?
That was a little uncalled-for, Mike. Everything to that point was pretty nicely phrased, but this line just makes it feel petty. Next to the rest of your comment, it makes you sound insincere about not-caring if she copies you.
why clean toilets for minimum wage when you can get all the food you need.
Because food, though necessary, is only one of many things people want. There're still houses, cars, the Internet, TV, videos, heat and electricity, games, amusment parks, trips to europe, new clothes, stage plays... There are plenty of things people want enough to work for even (especially?) if they don't have to pay a bill for food every month.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re:
Additionally, demand is not going to drive the price anywhere because, as a digital good, it's an abundant resource. If a million people download the song, it doesn't* make it less available for the million-and-first person. (There are certain technological restraints based on bandwidth and available download sources, but for our purposes these things can generally be ignored.)
Now, the language bit wasn't mine, but there's one point I want to pick at. You say, "Even in Techduh terms, an artist can only produce a certain number of songs in a lifetime, and as such, the songs are a rarity and valuable." Now, as noted, I agree that songs are valuable, but I disagree on their rarity. That is to say, a song is scarce before it is recorded -- it's "rare" in that one he could write/perform it, etc. Once it's been recorded, though, it becomes abundant because that recording can be replicated infinitely at zero cost. I don't believe this has killed value, as the song has value (or not) based on it's own intrinsic qualities. The point is, if you want to "sell" music, you have to sell the creation of music, since that's scarce, not copies of recordings.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re:
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re:
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: To simplify
Not sure what you mean by "anything that doesn't have fans the way music does." I mean, there are fans of authors (Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, John Hodgman), and there are fans of software companies (Bioware, Blizzard, Google), and there are fans of actors (Sean Penn, Niel Patrick Harris, Christian Bale). There are even fans of directors/producers (Joss Wheadon, Peter Jackson, the Wachowski brothers). I guess no one's really a "fan" of, say, Verizon or Baltimore Gas and Electric, but they offer a tangible service so I doubt they'll be affected by abundant markets any time soon. (Of course, I know people who are violently loyal to Verizon or Apple, to the point that they make financially-suboptimal choices, so maybe that counts as being a "fan"...)
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: To simplify
The idea isn't "how can we get music for free," but "how do we deal with music being free." Because music IS free. On the pessimistic side, you're music is being pirated and you have to address that -- threatening your fans probably isn't a good idea. On the other hand, piracy aside, if other bands start doing this (and they are), THEIR music is free, so how do you compete with them? They're getting a lot more exposure than a band who requires an upfront fee for the privelidge of their music.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: To simplify
Once I make a song, you can share it as much as you want. But I'm not making a new song until I'm paid for it. Once I've been paid to make a particular song, what do I care what happens to it? Also, if you want me to perform live music, you'll need to pay additional for that, and only so many people can enjoy a live performance (there's only so many seats in a venue).
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re:
There's a flaw here. You say that price drags value around, then turn around and say that value drags prive around. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that value is the more-fixed quality; you can't make people value something more just by raising the price. When gas prices go up, people buy less gas because it's not worth that much to them. When gas prices go down, people don't stop buying gas.
Anyways, your music apocalypse, where all music sinks to the quality of garage bands, doesn't make any sense at all. Why would talented people because less talented simply because other people are bad at what they do? The Greats of the past aren't worse musicians because SOME people chose to make commercial jingles. And even if lots of people make vapid, poorly-composed music, that doesn't mean there won't be ANYONE who has something meaningful to express and the talent to do it well. And they will shine brighter for all the mediocrity around them -- and people will VALUE their art more because of the rest of the drivel being made. And when people value something, they're willing to give up their money for it; the trick is finding a way to capture that money people WANT to give you.
The models discussed on Techdirt try to address just that scenario.
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt continues to excuse piracy away
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Re: Re:
And there's the assumption you're making that they won't. they'll see 100k movie-goers and 100k downloads and complain that they lost 1/2 their profits.
On the post: If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur
Re:
As a point of fact, if it isn't in your pocket to begin with, then no one's taking it out of your pocket. What's the difference between Microsoft not using your music now (and thus not paying you) and Microsoft using your music for free (with authorization)? In neither case does anyone give you money, but in the second case you DO get exposure. So in which scenario are you, the songwriter, better off?
On the post: If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank you
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because criminal court has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil cases don't have such high standards, you just have to prove that someone is possibly guilty.
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about, as is the case with many, the producers aren't LOOKING for compensation from the torrents? Look no further than Trent Reznor for an example; he's been seeding NIN torrents for a while now. Other artists, from film producers to photographers to authors -- use torrents to get their works out there. No, giving away EVERYTHING can't be the whole of your business model, but torrents are only wrong if they're unauthorized, infringing torrents.
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By that logic, I'm stealing from the industry by simply not-buying DVDs. You are not OWED compensation just because to produced something.
"And, copyright infringment IS theft in the eyes of the law."
No, it's not. Theft falls under criminal laws and statutes. Copyright infringement is only a civil dispute.
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I hold that's the fundamental error you're making. there is a difference because theft only occurs when someone is denied their rightful property. In the case of unauthorized downloading, EVERYONE has the digital goods, no one is being denied it. What's being denied is an exclusive right to copy, but that's copyright infringement, NOT theft.
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Re: Re:
If some guy goes out and buys a DVD, he paid for it, right? Now, if he cracks the encryption and puts the digital files on his computer, he's infringed on copyright (he doesn't have the right to copy it), but he hasn't STOLEN anything. And if he gives copies of that cracked DVD away, the people he gives it to aren't STEALING, not from him and not from the copyright holders. Copyright is being infringed on by this guy making unauthorized copies of the DVD he bought, but no THEFT has occured.
On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lily Allen: Copying Isn't Alright... Unless It's Done By Lily Allen
That was a little uncalled-for, Mike. Everything to that point was pretty nicely phrased, but this line just makes it feel petty. Next to the rest of your comment, it makes you sound insincere about not-caring if she copies you.
On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Make Content More Like Physical Property
Re: Re:
Because food, though necessary, is only one of many things people want. There're still houses, cars, the Internet, TV, videos, heat and electricity, games, amusment parks, trips to europe, new clothes, stage plays... There are plenty of things people want enough to work for even (especially?) if they don't have to pay a bill for food every month.
Next >>