Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Taylor Swift is bang on

Taylor Swift is bang on (Page 2)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
She'll recover.
I was, of course, referring to all of the other musicians that will benefit from her actions here.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 12:56 PM
 
Why is the format relevant, at all?

Advancements in technology have happened across all of society. There are computerized diagnostics of cars now. Does this mean that auto mechanics should make less money now?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm disagreeing with your assertions for what it was based on. Music was based on the price of the machine producing it – the labels, execs, producers, studio time, marketing, etc. Not on the medium that it was transmitted on.

Music has less value today because so many of those avenues have been eliminated or mitigated. You can do your own studio and distribution now. Talent can buck the system, with a little luck.


Because tapes were more scarce yet cheaper. Same went with records until they resurfaced in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Okay, I think I've traced down where I'm poorly communicating.

Let's say you develop software. Nobody buys it, everybody pirates it. It's value is therefore $0.

Let's say you put copy protection on it. Piracy goes down, people start buying. The new value is $X.

It's the copy protection which has given the software value. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is "allows it to have value".

That's what I mean when I say "the physical medium is what gave it value". The physical medium was the copy protection. The model was based on the existence of the copy protection, we just didn't know it until the copy protection disappeared. As soon as it did, the value started racing towards zero. The thing is, it's at zero now. As I said to besson, you volunteer to pay a dollar because they make it easy, and it's not an unreasonable amount to volunteer. If it was $5 a song you'd stop volunteering and pay nothing.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay, I think I've traced down where I'm poorly communicating.

Let's say you develop software. Nobody buys it, everybody pirates it. It's value is therefore $0.

Let's say you put copy protection on it. Piracy goes down, people start buying. The new value is $X.

It's the copy protection which has given the software value. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is "allows it to have value".

That's what I mean when I say "the physical medium is what gave it value". The physical medium was the copy protection. The model was based on the existence of the copy protection, we just didn't know it until the copy protection disappeared. As soon as it did, the value started racing towards zero. The thing is, it's at zero now. As I said to besson, you volunteer to pay a dollar because they make it easy, and it's not an unreasonable amount to volunteer. If it was $5 a song you'd stop volunteering and pay nothing.
You're using value in place of how easy something is to obtain illegally. To me, that's absurd. I can agree that stealability undermines value, but as the iTunes store displayed, it is not the end-all. Initial iTunes tracks were 99¢ with DRM. They now fluctuate as high as $1.29 without DRM. Stealability increased, price somehow also increased.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is the format relevant, at all?

Advancements in technology have happened across all of society. There are computerized diagnostics of cars now. Does this mean that auto mechanics should make less money now?
Some advancements have bigger effects than others.

One of the few things I actually got out of art school was having to read "Art In the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", a ****ing brilliant essay by Walter Benjamin. Sadly, if you come across it, you won't have my Art Teacher's almost equally brilliant notes in the margins.

This is so much part of our experience, the idea may not seem particularly novel, but here it is:

Mechanical reproduction is an earth shattering change to what art is.

The simplest example he gives is the Mona Lisa. For centuries, the Mona Lisa had a single context, that of hanging in the Louvre. Mechanical reproduction changed all that. Now the Mona Lisa is on a postcard. A postcard can have any context.

This "arbitrarily reproducible for no cost" thing I keep harping on? It's big. Order of magnitude bigger than mechanical reproduction, which is already big.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 02:19 PM
 
Not being a paid musician may or may not impact any contribution I could make to this discussion, but there's a problem with the following quote:

"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for."
Art is not important and rare. Good art is important and rare.

That's probably a way of paraphrasing what Dakar already mentioned in this thread by saying, "Talent is rare," but the problem is that music in its entirety has been devalued because there are 100 million bands/artists/musicians/singers, and 99% of them are god-awful.

Consider this, fledgling indie artist whom Taylor claims "just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt": people might not actually care about your music enough to buy it outright. They might not even pay for a streaming service where they can find your music. Apple's free three month trial period might be all that causes people to be exposed to your music, promising future streams and revenue.

That said, three months is an exceptionally long amount of time to go without being paid. Even a month is excessive. Under the model agreed to by the labels, Apple should have capped it off at perhaps 14 days. I don't think people would have raised much of a fuss about it, but three months? No one is going to defend that.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Some advancements have bigger effects than others.

One of the few things I actually got out of art school was having to read "Art In the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", a ****ing brilliant essay by Walter Benjamin. Sadly, if you come across it, you won't have my Art Teacher's almost equally brilliant notes in the margins.

This is so much part of our experience, the idea may not seem particularly novel, but here it is:

Mechanical reproduction is an earth shattering change to what art is.

The simplest example he gives is the Mona Lisa. For centuries, the Mona Lisa had a single context, that of hanging in the Louvre. Mechanical reproduction changed all that. Now the Mona Lisa is on a postcard. A postcard can have any context.

This "arbitrarily reproducible for no cost" thing I keep harping on? It's big. Order of magnitude bigger than mechanical reproduction, which is already big.
I seem to remember Sinatra having issues with his music moving to CD.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I almost forgot the most important part.

Lana Del Rey > Taylor Swift
Lana Del Rey is awesome. Have all her albums.

OAW
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 02:56 PM
 
I'm agreeing with subego on scarcity and cost. Items with a production cost of $0 can only acquire value through delivery method or donations - ie, via the delivery service.

Napster existed 1999-2001. So internet-based file sharing vs studio lawsuits has been around ~15 years now. How has the battle gone? Is piracy stamped out, or on the way out? Has progress been made, so piracy is less today than in 2000? Hint: the answer is 'no'.

It turns out stopping online piracy would require eliminating anonymous speech and banning encryption online. So everyone online monitored 24/7, no free speech there, no commerce, and no privacy. We'd have to give up rights our ancestors died obtaining for us, to maintain one industry's business model. And that still wouldn't stop physical file sharing.

The reality is digital content is online today for the cost of one's time to obtain it. Encryption is going up, not down, and we're reclaiming our privacy rights from the 3-letter orgs. So piracy isn't going anywhere.

Content sales have to focus on convenient delivery models with low costs, requiring minimal overhead. ie - online stores and streaming models. The delivery service. Apple's on the right track. Insisting on being paid for every copy doesn't work, because it has not worked. And the price of making it work is too high.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 03:07 PM
 
Like I said, people can still record music off the air and pay nothing but the cost of the tape.
( Last edited by Chongo; Jun 22, 2015 at 03:37 PM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2015, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think your focus on physical scarcity kind of misses what makes music valuable. It's the scarcity of talent and ability.
But that's something most people don't, or can't, quantify. If a thing doesn't have a tangible quality to it people assign it less value, that's just the way people think, on the whole. That's probably why I love LPs, the physical, even analog, aspect of them stimulates more than one sense. The look, feel, and even smell of new vinyl excites me, a new digital file simply doesn't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're using value in place of how easy something is to obtain illegally. To me, that's absurd. I can agree that stealability undermines value, but as the iTunes store displayed, it is not the end-all. Initial iTunes tracks were 99¢ with DRM. They now fluctuate as high as $1.29 without DRM. Stealability increased, price somehow also increased.
Am I reading you right?

Do you think my argument is "easy piracy means people don't pay, and that drops the value to zero"?

Because that's not even close to what I'm saying.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Art is not important and rare. Good art is important and rare.

That's probably a way of paraphrasing what Dakar already mentioned in this thread by saying, "Talent is rare," but the problem is that music in its entirety has been devalued because there are 100 million bands/artists/musicians/singers, and 99% of them are god-awful.

Consider this, fledgling indie artist whom Taylor claims "just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt": people might not actually care about your music enough to buy it outright. They might not even pay for a streaming service where they can find your music. Apple's free three month trial period might be all that causes people to be exposed to your music, promising future streams and revenue.

That said, three months is an exceptionally long amount of time to go without being paid. Even a month is excessive. Under the model agreed to by the labels, Apple should have capped it off at perhaps 14 days. I don't think people would have raised much of a fuss about it, but three months? No one is going to defend that.


Why do you think that 99% of new music is garbage? I'm not suggesting it is piracy, but I'm curious to hear what you think.
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm agreeing with subego on scarcity and cost. Items with a production cost of $0 can only acquire value through delivery method or donations - ie, via the delivery service.

Napster existed 1999-2001. So internet-based file sharing vs studio lawsuits has been around ~15 years now. How has the battle gone? Is piracy stamped out, or on the way out? Has progress been made, so piracy is less today than in 2000? Hint: the answer is 'no'.
Sorry, but that's wrong. I went through the numbers last week, piracy of music, video and software is at an all time low. Mainly because the easy and cheap availability via streaming services and app stores is making piracy much less attractive.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Am I reading you right?

Do you think my argument is "easy piracy means people don't pay, and that drops the value to zero"?

Because that's not even close to what I'm saying.
Well, I think you said DRM adds value, but the meaning to me is the same.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do you think that 99% of new music is garbage? I'm not suggesting it is piracy, but I'm curious to hear what you think.
Here is what I think...

Capitalism.

Much like our conversations about America being dominated by corporate interests, music is dominated by corporate interests. There are only a small number of major record labels that control most of music. Like Hollywood, they have found a money making formula that minimizes their risk, and this is built around short-term profits.

I don't think any executive was thinking that Justin Bieber would be a cash cow that would be generating money as he aged, but it doesn't matter, because there will be another Justin Bieber in the pipeline.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do you think that 99% of new music is garbage? I'm not suggesting it is piracy, but I'm curious to hear what you think.
99% might be a bit much, but it's certainly in the 90-99% range.

I believe it's due to a number of factors:
- Prosperity. Despite our recession, up-and-coming millennials don't often experience the depth of turmoil that usually results in the best music. They manufacture feelings, and it doesn't work. I think that's why hip hop has produced some of the most creative artists of the past twenty years — there's still some genuine strife in their communities.
- Pop culture sucks. Many are more interested in being famous than they are with honing their craft.
- Proliferation of technology in the hands of mediocre talent. Instead of renting a studio, bands can craft albums on their own, even if they're not qualified/equipped to make it sound right. Studios pop up everywhere because it's so much cheaper than it was 30 years ago.
- Talent is still rare. For every prominent band with a phenomenal live lead singer, I've heard twenty more with a lead singer that is actually tone deaf. For every band with a phenomenal guitarist/drummer/bassist/keyboardist/whatever, I've heard twenty more with musicians that have no feel for what they're doing. Even rarer is a talent with depth.

I'm not the old guy who thinks music sucks so much worse than it did in my day. Some of my favorite bands have been recent additions. I think we're just hearing more of the less-talented artists that would have never made it to the radio or record shelves in the first place if they'd been born in a different era.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 11:28 AM
 
I blame Autotune, any hack with a pretty face can churn out nonsensical crap if they're using the right software. This becomes painfully obvious when you see a concert and most of it is lipsynched and processed to within an inch of its life (it's even worse when the "artist" is required to actually perform, because they can't carry a tune if it had luggage handles). That's not the music that inspires and creates, it's not much more than noise.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I blame Autotune, any hack with a pretty face can churn out nonsensical crap if they're using the right software. This becomes painfully obvious when you see a concert and most of it is lipsynched and processed to within an inch of its life (it's even worse when the "artist" is required to actually perform, because they can't carry a tune if it had luggage handles). That's not the music that inspires and creates, it's not much more than noise.
Amen.

Lip-synching absolutely kills me. What's the point of seeing someone live if they don't actually perform?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 11:41 AM
 
I think technology just make it harder to separate the sound from the noise, if you'll pardon the pun, but there should still be ways to cut through that and find the gems.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Amen.

Lip-synching absolutely kills me. What's the point of seeing someone live if they don't actually perform?
For female artists, they do tend to put on a visual show. Costumes, dancing, sets...
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Sorry, but that's wrong. I went through the numbers last week, piracy of music, video and software is at an all time low. Mainly because the easy and cheap availability via streaming services and app stores is making piracy much less attractive.
Do you have a good numbers source? I know music piracy is down since the studios dropped DRM. But last I heard, video piracy is up. The percentage of internet traffic from piracy is down, but that's because total internet traffic increased. Piracy just didn't increase as fast as total traffic.

I don't have any feel for app piracy, but the size of video would dominate the numbers anyway.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The percentage of internet traffic from piracy is down, but that's because total internet traffic increased.
Considering the amount of traffic that is streaming video, it's hard for them not to be related.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, I think you said DRM adds value, but the meaning to me is the same.
subego: people pay for something with a value of zero, the important distinction is it's voluntary.

Dakar: people pay for music, your argument is absurd.

subego: This one ain't my fault.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
subego: people pay for something with a value of zero, the important distinction is it's voluntary.

Dakar: people pay for music, your argument is absurd.

subego: This one ain't my fault.
No, I said your supposition that music has no value is absurd. And the reasons for it were also absurd. I never claimed people paying for music is what gave it value.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:07 PM
 
If I'm talking about people paying for music, how can I be making the claim music has no value because people don't pay for it?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:11 PM
 
@Dakar,

Let me try this.

There's an author, I forget his name, who releases digital versions of all his books for free. Download them with his blessing.

He also sells them, and a large part of his audience decides to buy them, even though they don't have to.

What is the value of any given book he releases? I posit it's zero.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
For female artists, they do tend to put on a visual show. Costumes, dancing, sets...
Exactly. So why even pretend you're singing if it's not part of your contribution to the performance? Just dance to your own music instead of pretending we're all idiots.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Do you have a good numbers source? I know music piracy is down since the studios dropped DRM. But last I heard, video piracy is up. The percentage of internet traffic from piracy is down, but that's because total internet traffic increased. Piracy just didn't increase as fast as total traffic.

I don't have any feel for app piracy, but the size of video would dominate the numbers anyway.
Did you say "video pirates?"
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I'm talking about people paying for music, how can I be making the claim music has no value because people don't pay for it?
I didn't say you claim it has no value because people don't pay for it. This started because you claim this has to do with scarcity of a physical product. Where did you get off track here?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Dakar,

Let me try this.

There's an author, I forget his name, who releases digital versions of all his books for free. Download them with his blessing.

He also sells them, and a large part of his audience decides to buy them, even though they don't have to.

What is the value of any given book he releases? I posit it's zero.
Giving something away free and legally undermines value. No shit. How does this happen with music?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Giving something away free and legally undermines value. No shit. How does this happen with music?
You didn't answer the question.

Is the value zero?

As I said, he makes a living selling the books. Why is not the value the price he sets for the non-free version.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You didn't answer the question.

Is the value zero?
Oh. No, the value is not zero. The value is reduced by the free alternative, however. This, of course, applies to anything.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why is not the value the price he sets for the non-free version.
Because it doesn't sell in a vacuum.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oh. No, the value is not zero. The value is reduced by the free alternative, however. This, of course, applies to anything.
I've repeatedly discussed paying for something which has a value of zero. Is this just an impossible construction to you? Money is paid, therefore it must have value?

I should note price and value most certainly don't need to be the same. Them being different is how you get Tulip Fever, and how Dot Com booms become Dot Com busts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I've repeatedly discussed paying for something which has a value of zero. Is this just an impossible construction to you? Money is paid, therefore it must have value?
I'm completely lost here. What does you paying for something have to do with my disagreeing with how you're interpreting value?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 03:05 PM
 
I'm saying one can pay for something which has no value.

You seem to be saying if people pay for it, then it has value.

I'm saying the author's book has a value of zero by virtue of it being available for free. You're saying the author's book has a value of above zero because...

I don't know the because. I'm trying to figure that out. My last post proposed the notion it's because people paid for it. That may be wrong.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying one can pay for something which has no value.

You seem to be saying if people pay for it, then it has value.
No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We were discussing how you believe value is assigned to music. Are you rescinding your opinion about scarcity and DRM? Otherwise, that's what I'm discussing. Your view on how value is assigned.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 03:17 PM
 
The DRM was an analogy which didn't work very well.

I am not rescinding my opinion about scarcity.

Where do you want this to go now? I was on the part where I asked you to clarify your position, and you basically told me to **** off.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The DRM was an analogy which didn't work very well.

I am not rescinding my opinion about scarcity.
Fair enough, but I believe dropping the DRM argument means we rewind back to this post of mine.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where do you want this to go now? I was on the part where I asked you to clarify your position, and you basically told me to **** off.
Readdress that post, since you dropped the DRM line of argument.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:11 PM
 
I can rewind even farther...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think your focus on physical scarcity kind of misses what makes music valuable. It's the scarcity of talent and ability.
I think my focus on physical scarcity is correct, but it was a big mistake for me to take us down the semantic rabbit-hole of the term "value".

The fundamental change a lack of scarcity brings about is it makes payment for a product elective. The dollar one pays for a product for which there is no simple way to get other than paying a dollar is vastly different than the dollar one pays for a product when they can also get it for free.

As reader said, that dollar goes for whatever perks the delivery service offers, and the rest is, for lack of a better term, a donation.

What's so off-the-wall compared to the way it used to be is that if there's value to a song, you're the one who sets what it is. It could be $1.29, it could be some minuscule fraction of your streaming fee, it could be zero. You get to decide.

With an object for which there is scarcity, the market sets the value. You either pay it or go without.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Dakar,

Let me try this.

There's an author, I forget his name, who releases digital versions of all his books for free. Download them with his blessing.

He also sells them, and a large part of his audience decides to buy them, even though they don't have to.


What is the value of any given book he releases? I posit it's zero.
Tom Merritt

His fans are loyal patrons of his work, that's what they pay for, not the books themselves.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:36 PM
 
I'd remember Tom's name.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:38 PM
 
Well, he does publish all his work for free (simultaneous with his Amazon releases).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:42 PM
 
Let me rephrase "value equals zero" as "a primary business model based on an item for which there is no scarcity, and hence all payments are elective, is exceedingly high-risk".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2015, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Well, he does publish all his work for free (simultaneous with his Amazon releases).
I'm about 99% sure now it's Scott Sigler.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
99% might be a bit much, but it's certainly in the 90-99% range.
I keep hearing this, and it's just completely misguided.

That's been the average at least since the 1950s. People tend to forget that the only things we still even *know* about these days are the few gems that have some sort of lasting appeal. The HUGE majority of stuff was just "me-too" filler, fluff, and complete shit. Always has been.

And it was probably a lot higher if you take into account the fact that due to the democratisation of tools these days, ANYBODY can make a recording, regardless of budget, whereas you had to have some redeeming quality or commercial potential to even get to funding a recording session up until about fifteen or twenty years ago, so there was a filter applied that only selected a small portion of the actual music made by professionals at the time.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I keep hearing this, and it's just completely misguided.

That's been the average at least since the 1950s. People tend to forget that the only things we still even *know* about these days are the few gems that have some sort of lasting appeal. The HUGE majority of stuff was just "me-too" filler, fluff, and complete ****. Always has been.

And it was probably a lot higher if you take into account the fact that due to the democratisation of tools these days, ANYBODY can make a recording, regardless of budget, whereas you had to have some redeeming quality or commercial potential to even get to funding a recording session up until about fifteen or twenty years ago, so there was a filter applied that only selected a small portion of the actual music made by professionals at the time.
That's almost exactly what I said.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 10:13 AM
 
Hey, I think I'm going to drop this convo to save a few brain cycles (that I'm spending on the confed flag, sadly), but since I demanded answers, I'll do you the courtesy of responding to your latest post.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can rewind even farther...
I think my focus on physical scarcity is correct, but it was a big mistake for me to take us down the semantic rabbit-hole of the term "value".

The fundamental change a lack of scarcity brings about is it makes payment for a product elective. The dollar one pays for a product for which there is no simple way to get other than paying a dollar is vastly different than the dollar one pays for a product when they can also get it for free.

As reader said, that dollar goes for whatever perks the delivery service offers, and the rest is, for lack of a better term, a donation.

What's so off-the-wall compared to the way it used to be is that if there's value to a song, you're the one who sets what it is. It could be $1.29, it could be some minuscule fraction of your streaming fee, it could be zero. You get to decide.

With an object for which there is scarcity, the market sets the value. You either pay it or go without.
I will say this for you – the inelasticity in the price of CDs created a situation where the consumer knew they were getting screwed. But as for the digital medium, what devalued albums wasn't piracy, but the ability to finally purchase singles individually (I remember buying single CDs for like $4, at the cheapest). The ability to buy just the track you want undermined the album price, forcing them down. It's also what led to variable pricing on songs later on down the line.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 11:11 AM
 
Translation:

Here's a post saying I think your wrong... I won't respond to your answer because this discussion isn't important enough to me.

"Courtesy" is my middle name.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
That's almost exactly what I said.
The part you missed is that in the 50s/60s/70s/80s and 90s, 90+% of all recorded music was also shit.

It's just that you're young enough not to remember those times, and that the stuff regurgitated through nostalgia is limited to the minute percentage that had some sort of redeeming value.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2015, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Translation:

Here's a post saying I think your wrong... I won't respond to your answer because this discussion isn't important enough to me.

"Courtesy" is my middle name.
Well, I'm sorry it came off that way. I figured that just backing out would be more rude than giving the topic some final thought.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,