P.S.
Even if crack were made legal, I doubt that the profitibility per pound would fall anywhere near the profit of a car. But that’s sorta irrelevant.
And my point is that the best way to reduce someone’s profitability is to not buy their merchandise. I find it a little offensive (and remember, I’m usually accused of being a liberal) to use the government to force someone to reduce prices simply because you prefer to pay less for something. I’d like to pay less for some things to, but if I can’t afford them I don’t buy them, and I don’t avail myself of their use without paying.
SoMoMom: By that logic, can I justify taking food from the grocery store that I’ve never tasted, as long as I buy more of it later? I’ve never tasted a kumquat, for example, and just looking at it, I wouldn’t be inclined to buy one, but if I steal one and like it and buy more, is my stealing justified?
I just can’t understand why I am able to sample new recordings in the record stores, sample them at the retail music websites, and hear of them through word-of-mouth, then find the actual CDs for less than $13, and nobody else can. Am I just magical or something?
Have you ever asked the grocer if you could taste one? I had the produce man at Wal-Mart let my daughter try one once. She didn’t like it. We didn’t buy any. Just like I wouldn’t and SHOULDN’T buy music that I don’t like.
Just out of curiousity, why were you taping an album by an artist you didn’t, at the time, like? (Aside–Damn the Torpedoes is still, after all these years, an ass-kicking album. I still own my original vinyl copy.)
You asked the grocer’s for permission to taste a food with which your daughter was unfamiliar, so I can assume you were uncomfortable with simply taking it. Why, then, aren’t you interested in the artist’s permission to download his or her song? Where’s the moral difference?
Of course it’s his fault!! If he weren’t a very intelligent guy and a damn good debater to boot, we wouldn’t have to be thinking so hard here…cut it out, willya Phil? You’re wearing out my aging brain cells! 
I found the linked column to have some thoughtful things to say. It’s worth reflecting on whether or not there’s big money to be made in a sector of our economy depends on a lot of odd structural stuff. (Which is why nobody’s figured out a way to make teaching junior high pay $1,000,000 per year.) Popular music didn’t used to be a field where one could strike it big; it’s that way now, but we don’t really know if that’s a permanent or a transitory state.
Phil, you raised a couple of points:
-
I must admit I’m relying on everyone eventually being connected to the Web. Given that you can get a decent used computer for about the price of an inexpensive TV these days, and that Web access can be easily had for free, affordability isn’t that much of an issue even now. And think of how many people were online in 1994, compared to now. By 2010, only a few diehards won’t be online; that’s my guess.
-
It would change things; there’s a genuine likelihood that there might just be less money to be had in the music business, especially for groups that only had one or two good songs. But like I said, I don’t believe there’s a right that anyone has that their field be constructed in a way that allows them a chance at the jackpot, professionally.
Or maybe artists would start putting out better material. Back in the 1960s (time to do the ‘when I was a boy…’ bit ;)), it sure seemed that artists were much more capable of filling an entire record with good songs. Damned if I know why they can’t pull it off now, but if they can’t, why should we buy albums as if we’re pretending that they can?
Odds and ends:
a) ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss’: sure, Napster would like to figure out a way to make their role as middleman pay. But, like almost everyone else on the Internet, they haven’t, and probably won’t, even if they win the lawsuit. Just like with Amazon, what’s making money for the creators of Napster is the generosity of venture capitalists, bless their greedy little hearts.
b) Someone asked if I’d buy the music for 10 cents if I could get it for free. The answer is yes, for me and apparently for most people. Studies have been done on this - wish I could cite one, but last reference I saw was back in the '80s sometime - that showed that most people would rather buy things legally than steal them, buy them on the black market, or whatever, if the price is within the realm of what they consider reasonable.
c) ‘Music is entertainment; you don’t have to buy it.’ Maybe for some people. To me, TV is entertainment; I don’t have to watch it. But for me, periodic infusions of good new music seem to be a soul necessity. Don’t ask me to explain that; I can’t fully, even to myself. But I wouldn’t even be in this debate if it weren’t so.
Yeah, but I just knew it was going to be * his * fault, not anybody else’s, that I started talking about this topic again.
Anyway, one point that I’ve made before, and would like to reiterate, is that I don’t see how a product that ony facilitates copyright infringement can be shut down, when it has plenty of legitimate uses. As I said before, I can buy a radar detector even in some states where it is illegal to use one. What legitimate use is there for a radar detector? And there’s other examples, which my brain hurts too much to think of right now (bad day in lab; spilled AgNO3 on me and turned my arm dark brown). So why is it that a product with legitimate uses can be shut down because some people “abuse” it? They must have given a reason, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is…
Well, it wasn’t that I did not like him, I just was only familiar with a few songs from TP & the HB’s before the MTV videos. I taped it because I had a blank tape and that album (they played seven) was on at a time that I was still awake. I think I planned on erasing it after I gave it a try. I am always open to trying new music (or in this case music that was a little before my time). I think possibly my brother or someone else that I respected for taste in music might have pointed out that it was going to be on that night. I’ve slept since then so I don’t remember the details.
The difference is that if I had let my daughter try the little orange fruit without asking then it would have been gone and no one else could have purchased it. If I sample a copy of a song, it didn’t deplete the supply of that song. Or am I wrong? Someone that would take one without asking is going to do it anyway. I’m saying that now that the technology exists for people to take a song if they want it, the record companies and artists need to figure out how to use it to their benefit and/or point out the downsides to using MP3 files.
There is nothing like getting a CD and popping it in the player while you read the little book cover to cover. “Hey, honey, I didn’t know this. Look who’s playing on this song? Did you know Soandso co-wrote that song?” The photos and/or artwork that goes with it. It’s just not the same. Not to mention (again) I’ve now downloaded 4 files and they have all had something wrong with them. Sure I can hear the songs, but when I can afford a real actual clear and honest copy, I am going to get it if I like it. It’s like the difference between watching a movie on your VCR and going to the theatre. It’s no where near the same experience.
Since this is the most active and best thread on this subject here, I’m moving it to Great Debates. Y’all have fun over there.
** pldennison: [/p] in this thread you discuss the economics of creating a CD. Now, I’m not going to challenge your statements, as you are obviously more involved in the business than I am. However, you should make note that your argument–with a little insight–is actually contrary to your point…at least as written. Here we go:
You discuss the cost of a glass master as a major cost of CD production, and a few other things.
What you have described rather accurately is an economy of scale–there is a high fixed cost and a low variable cost. It’s similar to printing a magazine or comic (an area I * do * know a good bit about)–you pay through the nose for the plates and the first thousand copies (random number, there), but once you do, its costs essentially drop to 0 to produce more. This is as compared to tape production, where you have a lower fixed cost (I’ll trust you on this one) but a higher variable cost.
In an economy of scale, if you are only able to produce a small amount of product, your average total cost is very high. If you can produce a lot, the cost for each one drops to very little. Now, I’m sure that large record companies have costs that small producers do not–marketing and whatnot–but I don’t know how much they come to. However, the point is that, * as you layed out your argument, * you are in fact supporting the idea that CDs, when manufactured in mass quantities, cost very little.
Now before y’all go and jump me on the “that doesn’t make it right” argument, or the “well there’s other costs” rebuttal, please take the time to note that I did account for those being left out of here. I’m just pointing out that the post in said thread, as written, in fact can be used in reverse of it’s intention…
Sorry bout the bold…“p”, “b”, what’s the difference? 
I of course meant a copy that had been rabbited. Poor quality, no box, etc.
That’s just because you don’t have a nice tape-to-tape editing deck 
(Before you start in on that one…it’s my former roomate…the * film * guy, who pirates movies, not me)
I’m not going to argue with you about economies of scale, Myrr–that wasn’t my argument. Obviously they exist. My argument was that given an initial run of CDs and a run of cassettes of identical quantity, and including the mastering costs (can’t do the run without the master), the per-unit cost for CDs will be higher. You can’t simply ignore mastering costs; they are part and parcel of the pressing process.
I made this argument to copy the “CDs are cheaper than cassettes for no good reason argument.” The initial run of CDs is nearly always more expensive, and if sales are poor, there isn’t going to be any second pressing to even out that cost. Furthermore, the durability/fidelity argument still is valid as a factor in the price difference. Nearly everyone is more willing to pay more for a more durable, better-quality product. I haven’t bought a cassette copy of an album in about 6 years, nor would I.
Of course there is the durability issue.
So anyway, I have an actual question here: obviously for a small band just picked up, the initial run will be small. However, is this the case for the massive pop-automatons of today? If so, then you’re dead right on. If not, well, I still have a point (for once :D)…the ATC is significantly cut down. Whether it is cut down to the level of the ATC of cassettes, well, not too much is released widely on cassette anyway…
True, but not relevant to SoMoMom’s question. She was not asking whether Tom Petty got paid to have DTT played on the radio, but whether he made any money when she copied the album from the radio.
Petty does get paid for the track being played on the radio, but that does not grant SoMoMom the legal right to make a tape of it. Similarly, if I went out and bought a copy of DTT (which I really should do someday), that doesn’t give my buddies the right to make a copy of it.
One possibility arising from that idea, though, would be that a service like Napster (and hopefully there would be many such services competing if this came to pass) pays a fee to the artist for the right to distribute the song through its server. The end result would be something of a “choose your own radio” arrangement. Of course, this wouldn’t be possible with Napster as-is, since they don’t have any control over content, but it might be a way to go. I know a lot of people who would pay a fairly healthy subsciption fee to such a service. (If I had broadband access, I’d pay $20 or $30/month in a heartbeat.)
I think most artists would support a setup like that, but I don’t think the record companies would care for it. Their main purpose, after all, is telling people what to listen to.
Dr. J
Napster received a stay. It hasn’t closed yet. I’m sure I’m the first to mention this because everyone is, well, downloading music like crazy. I admit that I, too, nabbed a dozen songs today on my puny 56K. Seems like I will have time for some more after all. If I’m lucky, my cable modem will get here before the stay is lifted and I can nab 100 songs. These buy-cotts and boycotts are interesting. I can’t wait to see the results of these pledges and rallies.
Yea!! Napster is back on!!! The appeals court judges showed infinite wisdom in seeing something very suspicious about the RIAA’s suit and injunction. I don’t pity the RIAA one bit.
Too bad we can’t just check a popular CD out of a library, the way we can check out a bestselling book. I read books all the time that I’ll never buy, thanks to the excellent library system here in southern Maryland, but I don’t see Eve or Cal Meacham shaking their fists at me for undermining their moneymaking potential.
My point here is not to draw analogies or make any arguments about the moral validity or lack thereof of Napster itself or its ilk; I’m just building on my earlier point that we accept very different models of the way things work, or ought to work, in very similar businesses (or even in the same business at different times), simply due to the way things are.
Suppose there had never been libraries, and some towns tried to introduce the idea now, for the first time in history. Can you imagine the howls from the publishing companies? But because libraries are a fixture in our civilization, we take their effects on the publishing market, for both good and ill, for granted; we don’t ask whether their existence is fair to authors or book publishers. Yet these questions aren’t so different from the ones we’re asking about Napster.
Since everyone’s been asking, “does Napster use increase or decrease your buying of CDs?” I thought now would be the appropriate time to ask the same question of myself, only with respect to libraries and books.
When I have a good library system at hand, I’m positive that I buy fewer books. My trust that, if I want a given book, I can lay my hands on it in short order at the Twin Beaches Library, a mere five minutes from my door, frees me from having to posess the book in order to enjoy it.
The presence of a good library also distinctly skews my book-buying. I don’t buy mysteries at all; I read a lot of them, but I rarely read them twice, so I hardly need a shelf copy. But if there’s a nonfiction title that might be frequently handy to have for reference in the sorts of debates I periodically get into here in GD, I’m still likely to want that on my shelf; if it’s 5:30am and I need a cite, the library isn’t that full-service.
On the whole, the presence of a good library probably moderately increases my nonfiction purchases. But it drastically reduces my buying of fiction titles.
What, you can’t?
In the UK libraries will lend CDs, cassettes and videos happily, in the same was as books, although they usually charge a small fee for each item (e.g. 50p per CD).