"He capitalizes on the *scarce goods* that are connected to the novel. That could be the *writing* of the novel (i.e., getting someone to pay for the writing of the novel) or it could be the tangible book itself, or it could be the attention (a scarce good) that the novel draws. There are many such ways."
I don't see what's new here. Writers have always been signing deals with publishers, who in turn print and sell the tangible book, ths "scarce good," and create a buzz around the book to generate attention that is monetizable.
Are you saying that once an author puts out a novel/screenplay, anyone should be free to adapt it to any other medium without compensating the creator (which means anyone can make a Harry Potter movie without paying Rowling a dime)? Or that anyone should be free to print and sell tangible versions of the creation and keep all the proceeds (as is being done with the Bible and Shakespeare, to cite two most famous examples)?
I was under the impression one of the reasons copyright exists is to protect the creator precisely from such acts.
And for heaven's sake, Mike...please stop using the bad analogy of horse carriages for your tirades against protection.
I don't know why you continue to harbour the notion that writing songs or novels is somehow no more difficult than making horse carriages. And as I have said before, automobiles replaced the horse carriage, CDs replaced vinyls, but Metallica haven't replaced the Beatles. So, the horse carriage analogy is not spot on, as you would insist.
There's simply no respect for copyright in India and suing just won't get you anywhere, because it might take up to 10 years for the case to even come up for hearing.
T-Series decided to complain to Yahoo only because it's an American Internet company. If they had tried it with any Indian web site, they would have got the middle finger.
The company that sued was India's firt major audio pirate. That's how they started out in business, blatantly ripping off film tracks and selling them in the late 80s. But they were also responsible for bringing down the cost of recorded music (then cassettes) in the country, forcing the likes of HMV to cut cassette prices by more than 70%.
"In fact, it's even more ridiculous when you realize that many musicians want their music on these sites."
That's not true. In India, most of the popular music is film music, published and owned by companies. They call the shots; the musicians are at the mercy of movie makers and recording companies, because to make it big as a musician one needs a movie break. And musicians only get one-time payment for their music.
Musicians in India mostly don't want their music on any Web site (many have actually said so), because as recorded music sales keeps falling, thanks to piracy, it becomes more difficult for them to negotiate decent deals for their next movie project.
Piracy is so rampant in India it has nearly destroyed the recorded film music business. The only way out is for film companies to start giving away music for free and make their money elsewhere.
I don't think he actually knows how Wikipedia works. he probably thinks people just create pages and that no updating is done. Why else would he say Wikipedia "obviously" cannot update a third of its dataset?
He was responding much like his site -- too much ambiguity, too little transparency.
Firstly, your take on copyright being broken was interesting. Thanks.
"I'm allowed to charge people $100 for a glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice, but it's a pretty dumb idea especially if the kid down the street is offering something similar for a nickel."
Classic Mike Masnick argument. He likes to compare music with air, you seem to prefer orange juice. My point is: two glasses of orange juice are pretty much the same, but no two songs or bands are. And it doesn't take much to squeeze orange juice, but I am sure you'll agree it takes a helluva lot more to squeeze out great music.
"Williams says it's zero. Mike says it's lots. You say, I don't believe you, Mike, give me numbers. Sure, lots is vague, but your complaint amounts to "nuh-uh," and is less than a compelling argument. Do you have evidence that it's not a huge number?"
When Mike says something like that, you have to take it with a pinch of salt. If you've been here long enough you'd know. He has a habit of throwing out such vague terms.
Mike said it's a rather large number, which is downright vague. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the statement.
I never said it's not a huge number, did I? Or that it's zero (which is what Hank did)? If I had, you'd be right to ask me for proof.
"I recognize that you disagree with me, but, seriously, you've got to come up with better arguments than this.
That has not happened. If the music business is doing fine, without copyright, why are they clamouring for greater copyright enforcement?
Don't confusing the *recording* industry with the *music* industry."
A large part of the "music" industry is still intertwined with the "recording" industry. How many of the top acts are independent? Do you mean to say the members of the "music" industry have freed themselves of the shackles of copyright and embraced your grand free model? With stray exceptions like Reznor, all top acts continue to be part and parcel of the recording industry.
"Demise of copyright? When did that happen? Or do you mean the annihilation of the idea of copyright in the digital domain, thanks to a six-letter word called piracy?
I was merely pointing out that the shift in making money from music has moved away from relying on copyright -- as I already explained. And it hasn't hurt the music business. And, again, no it's not about piracy, no matter how many times you insist on pinning that label on everything I describe."
You'll never agree with me on this point, I know. But it is the elephant in the room. No matter how much you pretend it isn't. In another blog post, you had said people will find a way to copy their content. Wasn't that a tacit admission?
"But you just said there has been a fall in the sales of shiny discs, which is what CDs look like. You also said Internet promotion works. Then why has it not led to a jump in CD sales? Topping handwaving with contradictions?
Again, I was talking about promotion of the overall music business -- which I explained. I'm not sure what you think is handwaving, because I thought I was quite clear on that. CD sales are down because it's a substitute. The music itself acts as a promotion for all those other *scarce* goods that aren't substitutes."
In earlier posts, you have said CDs are scarce goods that artists could make money out of. Now this. Mike, it's getting tiresome.
"You really want to attack me, I understand, but your arguments need to at least make sense. Try to read what I actually wrote rather than what you want me to write. It'll make this debate a lot more interesting."
No. My point is not to attack you. I don't have any agenda, Mike. If I have given that impression I am sorry. I apologize. Maybe I should have just read the post, chuckled and moved on. I wanted to engage with you on "what you actually wrote," not what I imagine you have. I follow this blog closely, I've read a lot of your stuff. It's only when I find all these contradictions and handwaving that I get provoked and write these awfully long replies.
"Besides the point? I thought that was the core point. But of course, I'm not Mike Masnick.
Two points:
* Copyright was never intended to protect from harm. It was created as an incentive to create.
* More importantly, the reason I said this was besides the point was that if there's *no actual harm* the question of why laws are in place doesn't matter. Williams entire point is based on the idea that there's harm. If there's no harm, it's besides the point."
Of course, that's what I was also stating. Copyright violation harms the labels. He's arguing for protection of the labels, which is why I thought it was not beside the point at all, but central to his defense.
"
At this point I'm repeating myself.
The harm or perceived harm is being done to the labels.
And we need a law to protect harm to the labels? Where was the law to protect harm done to the horse and buggy makers? Do you support laws protecting any business that has a bad business model and goes out of business?"
Who decides what is a good or bad model? You may think this model doesn't work, but Hank does and perceives harm. Whether we need to protect the labels is a totally different issue.
"If every band/musician can become a super success on the Internet, no one would give a rat's ass about shows like American Idol, which provide a platform for you to reach the whole world and help you strike deals with labels who will take care of promoting you and your music, touring, merchandising, press, PR, worldwide sales, etc.
Huh? I know you've been commenting here for a while, but I really have to question if you've read what I've written, or if you've just decided what you think I said. You keep creating these strawmen."
So the Internet is not the panacea for upcoming musicians. They do need the marketing muscle that labels provide. Again, my bad. I assumed you were touting the Internet as the be-all and end-all of music promotion. But I hope you will notice that all the other media and channels, such as television, American Idol, etc...rely heavily on copyright.
""Arguing against a strawman may make you feel right, but you'll find it does little to convince anyone that you're actually right."
I am not trying to convince anyone I am right. What I am merely trying to do is hold up your contentions and see if they stand every test. We live in exciting times and your ideas seem different. I am just trying to convince myself how far Mike is right. And the more I read, the clearer the picture.
"That's a whole lot different from saying he's opposed to any change in the copyright law. As usual, you are putting words into people's mouths, something you have elevated to a fine art.
Funny. This from the guy who has repeatedly put words in my mouth. This from the guy who says that I've said record labels shouldn't exist. This from the guy who insists I'm really talking about piracy, when I am not.
Your credibility here is nonexistent."
Wow, what an ad hominem attack! You really are pissed, aren't you? Sorry mate, you just put words into Hank's mouth, trying to twist them into meaning what he did not say. I merely point it out and you refuse to accept it. Your supersensitive ego is making any sort of civil debate difficult.
"Isn't it? If there were no piracy, why would we even be discussing alternative business models?
Absolutely. I was talking about this stuff before Napster existed."
I didn't know that. I was new to the net when Napster happened. But why would you want to take away so much revenue from content sales from a company by asking them to give it away free? Because if there were no piracy, everyone would be purchasing MP3 files instead of CDs, and companies would not scream from the rooftops about falling revenues.
"Cram, again, I recognize that for whatever reason, you are still not convinced by what I write here. Fair enough. But I would suggest for the betterment of this entire conversation that you stop raising strawman arguments and focus on what I have actually said."
You conveniently ignore points that I raise, just as you have done with others (Alexander comes to mind). I am not surprised. As for my time spent here, it's never wasted, I can assure you. It gives me a better understanding of what's happening to the content landscape and what factors shape it.
"This assumes that without copyright, content creation goes down. There's no evidence to support this."
Of course there's no evidence to support this, because copyright's not been done away with yet. Actually, the fact that plenty of copyrighted content is still being created shows that copyright and content are not totally delinked. If that were the case, everyone should have moved away from copyright to GPL or Creative Commons by now.
"In fact, we see more content creation today than ever before in history, and most of it is not because of copyright in the slightest."
Is there any data to support this claim? Even if it were true, much of the non-copyright content is rubbish (Youtube is a classic example). Would it be sacrilegious to say copyright is directly linked to the quality of content?
"The number of bands who exist solely because of their ability to build a following on the internet is rather large at this point, with plenty of bands crediting the internet's ability for easy distribution and marketing for their own ability to exist."
Rather large? How large is that? And how big are they? Are we talking about at least 25 significant bands/musicians? 50? 100? Where do they figure on the top 100 list, if they do?
"Of course, that depends on how you define "blockbuster" success. Williams seems to define it narrowly to suit his purposes, and that completely undermines his argument."
How many ways are there of defining blockbuster success, at least in this context? I don't think one can "narrowly define" a blockbuster.
"Bands like the Arctic Monkeys created the following that turned them into a huge success via the internet. Maria Schneider won a Grammy with a model that relied on internet support."
That's skating on thin ice. Succeeding via the Internet and "relying on Internet support" are two different things. How many bands have succeeded primarily through the Internet? How many Grammy winners are using the Internet as the sole distribution channel?
"We get examples sent to us practically every day of bands successfully using these models that don't rely on copyright."
Could you publish a list of those bands, and maybe some info on how successful they have been? It would provide tremendous insight into how the emancipation of musicians has just begun.
"Recorded music sales have been shrinking rapidly over the past few years. In fact, the numbers we've seen have shown the same thing consistently: every single aspect of the music business is on the upswing, except for sales of shiny discs."
Is that a good thing, this fall in the sales of shiny discs?
Why should anyone try to circumvent DRM? Isn't that against the very idea of DRM? Only pirates would be obsessed with circumventing DRM. Someone says "I'm selling you content with DRM. Don't try to circumvent it." And you promptly go ahead and try and break into the house, and then complain when you're hauled up before the law. How logical is that?
Unless and until DRM is outlawed, it makes no sense to complain when you are penalized for trying to break into another man's property.
That was awesome, man. I know it's way too late to comment but I just stumbled upon your magnificent deconstruction of Mike's faux economics. Way to go, chief!
Thanks for the response. I may be wrong here, but I think you are contradicting yourself when you say you want artists to be financially rewarded, while also stating that "I want to make a living" is not a valid enough reason.
As for the "horse and buggy whips" analogy, well...things are just not the same in the arts, are they? 99 bands may give away their music free, but if the 100th insists they won't, and if people like their music, they can still make a living in violation of your "basic economics" theory.
Or all authors may start giving away their works online. But JK Rowling can still insist everyone buys her books. And I am pretty sure she'll succeed. But that's just me.
Thanks for your comments. I really like the way you call a spade a spade. And that's exactly what my gripe with Mike is. Instead of clearly saying piracy is at the root of the need to change the traditional business model, he keeps tapdancing around the issue with terms like basic economics, infinite goods and the like. Simply put, piracy is here to stay. You can't do shite about it. Get real, get a better model.
But I've also argued that the worst hit are musicians and the newspaper people. Authors don't seem to be under threat simply because people still prefer to read the printed word. They're willing to pay good money for it. Why on earth should they consider a "give it away free model"? See, the free model doesn't work for everyone. Mike seems loath to accept that.
In an earlie discussion with Mike, I even came up with a business model, which he told me has already been adopted by Maria Schneider. So, contrary to what you think, my head's not in the sand. Come on man, I am not a music company CEO; I'm very much clued in to what's happening in the real world.
I want the artists to make money; I'm all for cutting out the RIAA and other distributors; I love the Internet and I'm also acutely aware that piracy has changed the game.
If he's not, then why does he keep arguing for the free model when it isn't clear whether it will work for certain sections? Clearly he wants everyone to follow his lead, whether its suits them or not.
"The point is that there are many different business models, but the focus has to be on giving people a relevant *reason* to pay other than "I need to earn a living!" You have to provide scarce value that is set up in a way that people don't mind paying."
So, according to you, the need to earn a living is not reason enough. Well, I never. It's beyond me why you insist that everyone should adopt the free model simply because it works for the line of business you are in.
The most relevant reason an artist can offer, and that's what they have been doing all along, is: "I'm entertaining you, making sure you had a good time, please pay." Why is that unacceptable to you? Why do you assume that people will mind paying for content?
Or are you saying that people won't pay because they can get it for free because they've no problems with digital shoplifting? Since the Internet has all but legitmized the unauthorized publishing of content, no one wants to pay?
Totally with you. Actually I've been through this with Mike before and he stubbornly refuses to recognize that creative work needs to be financially rewarded to keep the arts alive (and I mean directly, not through so-called scarce goods).
Also, Mike's "economic realities" are grounded in the fact that the Internet has turned us all into pirates. His infinite goods theory is basically just that - you can't do a damn thing about piracy, so why don't you yourself give away all that you create for free. Otherwise why would any content creator in his senses give away what he can charge for?
"He capitalizes on the *scarce goods* that are connected to the novel. That could be the *writing* of the novel (i.e., getting someone to pay for the writing of the novel) or it could be the tangible book itself, or it could be the attention (a scarce good) that the novel draws. There are many such ways."
I don't see what's new here. Writers have always been signing deals with publishers, who in turn print and sell the tangible book, ths "scarce good," and create a buzz around the book to generate attention that is monetizable.
Are you saying that once an author puts out a novel/screenplay, anyone should be free to adapt it to any other medium without compensating the creator (which means anyone can make a Harry Potter movie without paying Rowling a dime)? Or that anyone should be free to print and sell tangible versions of the creation and keep all the proceeds (as is being done with the Bible and Shakespeare, to cite two most famous examples)?
I was under the impression one of the reasons copyright exists is to protect the creator precisely from such acts.
no more horse carriages
And for heaven's sake, Mike...please stop using the bad analogy of horse carriages for your tirades against protection.
I don't know why you continue to harbour the notion that writing songs or novels is somehow no more difficult than making horse carriages. And as I have said before, automobiles replaced the horse carriage, CDs replaced vinyls, but Metallica haven't replaced the Beatles. So, the horse carriage analogy is not spot on, as you would insist.
another link
http://tinyurl.com/57lkno
fyi
http://tinyurl.com/5t79vj
forgot to add...
There's simply no respect for copyright in India and suing just won't get you anywhere, because it might take up to 10 years for the case to even come up for hearing.
T-Series decided to complain to Yahoo only because it's an American Internet company. If they had tried it with any Indian web site, they would have got the middle finger.
Ironical
The company that sued was India's firt major audio pirate. That's how they started out in business, blatantly ripping off film tracks and selling them in the late 80s. But they were also responsible for bringing down the cost of recorded music (then cassettes) in the country, forcing the likes of HMV to cut cassette prices by more than 70%.
"In fact, it's even more ridiculous when you realize that many musicians want their music on these sites."
That's not true. In India, most of the popular music is film music, published and owned by companies. They call the shots; the musicians are at the mercy of movie makers and recording companies, because to make it big as a musician one needs a movie break. And musicians only get one-time payment for their music.
Musicians in India mostly don't want their music on any Web site (many have actually said so), because as recorded music sales keeps falling, thanks to piracy, it becomes more difficult for them to negotiate decent deals for their next movie project.
Piracy is so rampant in India it has nearly destroyed the recorded film music business. The only way out is for film companies to start giving away music for free and make their money elsewhere.
Re: Re: Buzzwords 3.0
I don't think he actually knows how Wikipedia works. he probably thinks people just create pages and that no updating is done. Why else would he say Wikipedia "obviously" cannot update a third of its dataset?
He was responding much like his site -- too much ambiguity, too little transparency.
Re: Buzzwords 3.0
Hi Rose
Whenever you see version and free in the same sentence, you can be pretty sure the "free version" is going to be a diluted one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: King of Handwaving
Hi Someguy
Firstly, your take on copyright being broken was interesting. Thanks.
"I'm allowed to charge people $100 for a glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice, but it's a pretty dumb idea especially if the kid down the street is offering something similar for a nickel."
Classic Mike Masnick argument. He likes to compare music with air, you seem to prefer orange juice. My point is: two glasses of orange juice are pretty much the same, but no two songs or bands are. And it doesn't take much to squeeze orange juice, but I am sure you'll agree it takes a helluva lot more to squeeze out great music.
"Williams says it's zero. Mike says it's lots. You say, I don't believe you, Mike, give me numbers. Sure, lots is vague, but your complaint amounts to "nuh-uh," and is less than a compelling argument. Do you have evidence that it's not a huge number?"
When Mike says something like that, you have to take it with a pinch of salt. If you've been here long enough you'd know. He has a habit of throwing out such vague terms.
Mike said it's a rather large number, which is downright vague. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the statement.
I never said it's not a huge number, did I? Or that it's zero (which is what Hank did)? If I had, you'd be right to ask me for proof.
"I recognize that you disagree with me, but, seriously, you've got to come up with better arguments than this.
That has not happened. If the music business is doing fine, without copyright, why are they clamouring for greater copyright enforcement?
Don't confusing the *recording* industry with the *music* industry."
A large part of the "music" industry is still intertwined with the "recording" industry. How many of the top acts are independent? Do you mean to say the members of the "music" industry have freed themselves of the shackles of copyright and embraced your grand free model? With stray exceptions like Reznor, all top acts continue to be part and parcel of the recording industry.
"Demise of copyright? When did that happen? Or do you mean the annihilation of the idea of copyright in the digital domain, thanks to a six-letter word called piracy?
I was merely pointing out that the shift in making money from music has moved away from relying on copyright -- as I already explained. And it hasn't hurt the music business. And, again, no it's not about piracy, no matter how many times you insist on pinning that label on everything I describe."
You'll never agree with me on this point, I know. But it is the elephant in the room. No matter how much you pretend it isn't. In another blog post, you had said people will find a way to copy their content. Wasn't that a tacit admission?
"But you just said there has been a fall in the sales of shiny discs, which is what CDs look like. You also said Internet promotion works. Then why has it not led to a jump in CD sales? Topping handwaving with contradictions?
Again, I was talking about promotion of the overall music business -- which I explained. I'm not sure what you think is handwaving, because I thought I was quite clear on that. CD sales are down because it's a substitute. The music itself acts as a promotion for all those other *scarce* goods that aren't substitutes."
In earlier posts, you have said CDs are scarce goods that artists could make money out of. Now this. Mike, it's getting tiresome.
"You really want to attack me, I understand, but your arguments need to at least make sense. Try to read what I actually wrote rather than what you want me to write. It'll make this debate a lot more interesting."
No. My point is not to attack you. I don't have any agenda, Mike. If I have given that impression I am sorry. I apologize. Maybe I should have just read the post, chuckled and moved on. I wanted to engage with you on "what you actually wrote," not what I imagine you have. I follow this blog closely, I've read a lot of your stuff. It's only when I find all these contradictions and handwaving that I get provoked and write these awfully long replies.
"Besides the point? I thought that was the core point. But of course, I'm not Mike Masnick.
Two points:
* Copyright was never intended to protect from harm. It was created as an incentive to create.
* More importantly, the reason I said this was besides the point was that if there's *no actual harm* the question of why laws are in place doesn't matter. Williams entire point is based on the idea that there's harm. If there's no harm, it's besides the point."
Of course, that's what I was also stating. Copyright violation harms the labels. He's arguing for protection of the labels, which is why I thought it was not beside the point at all, but central to his defense.
"
At this point I'm repeating myself.
The harm or perceived harm is being done to the labels.
And we need a law to protect harm to the labels? Where was the law to protect harm done to the horse and buggy makers? Do you support laws protecting any business that has a bad business model and goes out of business?"
Who decides what is a good or bad model? You may think this model doesn't work, but Hank does and perceives harm. Whether we need to protect the labels is a totally different issue.
"If every band/musician can become a super success on the Internet, no one would give a rat's ass about shows like American Idol, which provide a platform for you to reach the whole world and help you strike deals with labels who will take care of promoting you and your music, touring, merchandising, press, PR, worldwide sales, etc.
Huh? I know you've been commenting here for a while, but I really have to question if you've read what I've written, or if you've just decided what you think I said. You keep creating these strawmen."
So the Internet is not the panacea for upcoming musicians. They do need the marketing muscle that labels provide. Again, my bad. I assumed you were touting the Internet as the be-all and end-all of music promotion. But I hope you will notice that all the other media and channels, such as television, American Idol, etc...rely heavily on copyright.
""Arguing against a strawman may make you feel right, but you'll find it does little to convince anyone that you're actually right."
I am not trying to convince anyone I am right. What I am merely trying to do is hold up your contentions and see if they stand every test. We live in exciting times and your ideas seem different. I am just trying to convince myself how far Mike is right. And the more I read, the clearer the picture.
"That's a whole lot different from saying he's opposed to any change in the copyright law. As usual, you are putting words into people's mouths, something you have elevated to a fine art.
Funny. This from the guy who has repeatedly put words in my mouth. This from the guy who says that I've said record labels shouldn't exist. This from the guy who insists I'm really talking about piracy, when I am not.
Your credibility here is nonexistent."
Wow, what an ad hominem attack! You really are pissed, aren't you? Sorry mate, you just put words into Hank's mouth, trying to twist them into meaning what he did not say. I merely point it out and you refuse to accept it. Your supersensitive ego is making any sort of civil debate difficult.
"Isn't it? If there were no piracy, why would we even be discussing alternative business models?
Absolutely. I was talking about this stuff before Napster existed."
I didn't know that. I was new to the net when Napster happened. But why would you want to take away so much revenue from content sales from a company by asking them to give it away free? Because if there were no piracy, everyone would be purchasing MP3 files instead of CDs, and companies would not scream from the rooftops about falling revenues.
"Cram, again, I recognize that for whatever reason, you are still not convinced by what I write here. Fair enough. But I would suggest for the betterment of this entire conversation that you stop raising strawman arguments and focus on what I have actually said."
You conveniently ignore points that I raise, just as you have done with others (Alexander comes to mind). I am not surprised. As for my time spent here, it's never wasted, I can assure you. It gives me a better understanding of what's happening to the content landscape and what factors shape it.
That comment was from me.
King of Handwaving
"This assumes that without copyright, content creation goes down. There's no evidence to support this."
Of course there's no evidence to support this, because copyright's not been done away with yet. Actually, the fact that plenty of copyrighted content is still being created shows that copyright and content are not totally delinked. If that were the case, everyone should have moved away from copyright to GPL or Creative Commons by now.
"In fact, we see more content creation today than ever before in history, and most of it is not because of copyright in the slightest."
Is there any data to support this claim? Even if it were true, much of the non-copyright content is rubbish (Youtube is a classic example). Would it be sacrilegious to say copyright is directly linked to the quality of content?
"The number of bands who exist solely because of their ability to build a following on the internet is rather large at this point, with plenty of bands crediting the internet's ability for easy distribution and marketing for their own ability to exist."
Rather large? How large is that? And how big are they? Are we talking about at least 25 significant bands/musicians? 50? 100? Where do they figure on the top 100 list, if they do?
"Of course, that depends on how you define "blockbuster" success. Williams seems to define it narrowly to suit his purposes, and that completely undermines his argument."
How many ways are there of defining blockbuster success, at least in this context? I don't think one can "narrowly define" a blockbuster.
"Bands like the Arctic Monkeys created the following that turned them into a huge success via the internet. Maria Schneider won a Grammy with a model that relied on internet support."
That's skating on thin ice. Succeeding via the Internet and "relying on Internet support" are two different things. How many bands have succeeded primarily through the Internet? How many Grammy winners are using the Internet as the sole distribution channel?
"We get examples sent to us practically every day of bands successfully using these models that don't rely on copyright."
Could you publish a list of those bands, and maybe some info on how successful they have been? It would provide tremendous insight into how the emancipation of musicians has just begun.
"Recorded music sales have been shrinking rapidly over the past few years. In fact, the numbers we've seen have shown the same thing consistently: every single aspect of the music business is on the upswing, except for sales of shiny discs."
Is that a good thing, this fall in the sales of shiny discs?
why
Why should anyone try to circumvent DRM? Isn't that against the very idea of DRM? Only pirates would be obsessed with circumventing DRM. Someone says "I'm selling you content with DRM. Don't try to circumvent it." And you promptly go ahead and try and break into the house, and then complain when you're hauled up before the law. How logical is that?
Unless and until DRM is outlawed, it makes no sense to complain when you are penalized for trying to break into another man's property.
Hi Alexander
That was awesome, man. I know it's way too late to comment but I just stumbled upon your magnificent deconstruction of Mike's faux economics. Way to go, chief!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi Mobigeek
"The natural price of that good tends to zero"
unless you include the cost of intellectual property. otherwise, yes.
Re: Re: Re:
Hi Mike
Thanks for the response. I may be wrong here, but I think you are contradicting yourself when you say you want artists to be financially rewarded, while also stating that "I want to make a living" is not a valid enough reason.
As for the "horse and buggy whips" analogy, well...things are just not the same in the arts, are they? 99 bands may give away their music free, but if the 100th insists they won't, and if people like their music, they can still make a living in violation of your "basic economics" theory.
Or all authors may start giving away their works online. But JK Rowling can still insist everyone buys her books. And I am pretty sure she'll succeed. But that's just me.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi Nasch
Thanks for your comments. I really like the way you call a spade a spade. And that's exactly what my gripe with Mike is. Instead of clearly saying piracy is at the root of the need to change the traditional business model, he keeps tapdancing around the issue with terms like basic economics, infinite goods and the like. Simply put, piracy is here to stay. You can't do shite about it. Get real, get a better model.
But I've also argued that the worst hit are musicians and the newspaper people. Authors don't seem to be under threat simply because people still prefer to read the printed word. They're willing to pay good money for it. Why on earth should they consider a "give it away free model"? See, the free model doesn't work for everyone. Mike seems loath to accept that.
In an earlie discussion with Mike, I even came up with a business model, which he told me has already been adopted by Maria Schneider. So, contrary to what you think, my head's not in the sand. Come on man, I am not a music company CEO; I'm very much clued in to what's happening in the real world.
I want the artists to make money; I'm all for cutting out the RIAA and other distributors; I love the Internet and I'm also acutely aware that piracy has changed the game.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he's not, then why does he keep arguing for the free model when it isn't clear whether it will work for certain sections? Clearly he wants everyone to follow his lead, whether its suits them or not.
Re: Re:
You're finally revealing yourself, Mike.
"The point is that there are many different business models, but the focus has to be on giving people a relevant *reason* to pay other than "I need to earn a living!" You have to provide scarce value that is set up in a way that people don't mind paying."
So, according to you, the need to earn a living is not reason enough. Well, I never. It's beyond me why you insist that everyone should adopt the free model simply because it works for the line of business you are in.
The most relevant reason an artist can offer, and that's what they have been doing all along, is: "I'm entertaining you, making sure you had a good time, please pay." Why is that unacceptable to you? Why do you assume that people will mind paying for content?
Or are you saying that people won't pay because they can get it for free because they've no problems with digital shoplifting? Since the Internet has all but legitmized the unauthorized publishing of content, no one wants to pay?
Re:
Hi Steven
Totally with you. Actually I've been through this with Mike before and he stubbornly refuses to recognize that creative work needs to be financially rewarded to keep the arts alive (and I mean directly, not through so-called scarce goods).
Also, Mike's "economic realities" are grounded in the fact that the Internet has turned us all into pirates. His infinite goods theory is basically just that - you can't do a damn thing about piracy, so why don't you yourself give away all that you create for free. Otherwise why would any content creator in his senses give away what he can charge for?