Sorry I've been away for a few days, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can now......I know you posted these for redvelvet also and perhaps he will have more to add?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeWeeGee  You make some good points, but still overlook some key elements.
1. What is the perceived value of the product?
|
I'm not in denial that the perceived market value of recorded music is low.
But lets take piracy out of this picture (or curb it at least) to determine what the real market value should be
Here's a post I made earlier that attempts to do just that.......
"
In the past 10 years we've had
more computers
more internet access
more iPods (some 225,000,000 of them!)
more phones with memory
more single downloads
more bands with better visibility than ever before
more people going to more gigs
an economic boom
cheap credit
more disposable income than ever before
The world's economy doubled in size from U.S. $30.21 to U.S. $60.59 trillion
Yet the music industry is effectively halved?
But I think the fairest way to correlate the two, (piracy & revenue) is to look at the growth in gigs.
Find out what the growth was in the gigs and I reckon you'll probably get the fairest indicator of what the music industry *should* have grown by without piracy.
"
If you are saying that....the market value of recorded music is nominal or free, then you have a valid point.
Then ask yourself
why is the market value perceived to be nominal or free?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeWeeGee 2. Is the money equitably distributed throughout the industry?
|
NO, and there is a very good reason behind this. Bands are probably one of the riskiest endeavours that one could ever invest in.
The record companies take a HUGE risk, and I argue that because of piracy, they are less likely to take a risk in developing the more creative artists in the future.
I would much rather pay 99c to help quality artists than see them languishing in mc Donalds Now that's equitable don't you think! Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeWeeGee 3. Where does the "everything is free" model come from?
|
The pirate parties manifesto.......
"we want to create a fair and balanced copyright"
a few paragraphs later......
"All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free, file sharing and P2P networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized"
also......
A quick search of TPB yielded
ALL of the UK top 10
7 out of top 10 films (U.K)
Call of duty-modern warfare, logic, Native Instruments, some waves stuff etc etc......
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeWeeGee EVERY major industry (outside of utilities - which are monopolies) has to adjust to market dilution and price levels. . |
I'm all for free market economics, but lets take piracy out the equation. Music is less than half the price of what it used to be (inflation adjusted)
We need to ask ourselves, is this because of cheaper distribution mechanisms/market saturation OR is it simple elasticity of demand?....ie when something is free, it's extremely hard to convince people to pay otherwise.
People still love music, and they'll spend a great deal on gigs, but why won't they spend a great deal on music?
redvelvet puts it more succinctly than i ever could.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios jumping in here without addressing anyone specifically...
a few of observations...
1) the "new" model for the music industry is the "old" but without any (or radically reduced) expectation of revenue from recorded music sales - IE - play live shows, sell merch... both old ideas, not new. Shows = Loss Leader for Recorded Music Sales (oooops), and Merch was a sideline business in addition to music - not instead of... the new model/s are nothing than the old models but without recorded music revenue in the mix
2) historically it has been record labels who have invested capital into the development of bands (radiohead, nine inch nails, janes addiction, guns & roses, metallica, beatles, led zeppelin, rolling stones, ottis reading, al green, madonna, etc).
No return on investment means investments will stop. Concert promoters and merch companies only monetize an artists brand after the label has developed it. Concert promoters and Merch companies do not invest in artist development - labels do - as high risk venture capital, and specialized marketing services.
3) rich rock stars don't need the money, they have enough - piracy isn't going to hurt metallica or lady ga ga... uhmmm ok... how did they get so freakin' rich?
4) record labels are evil ripping off artists - if labels didn't rip off artists, people would be more inclined to pay for music? Huh? Wait... I thought people justified stealing music because rich rock stars didn't need the money... but records labels are evil and rip people off and don't pay anyone?
I'm confused... who was slumming at the Grammys? How can an industry that's ripping people off be so evil that it spawns thousands of sustainable careers for musicians, producers, engineers - but doesn't pay anyone? HMMMMM
5) Music is too expensive if it cost less people would buy more. Really? Songs are 99 cents - they're cheaper than candy bars and last longer. Should we look at 10 yr graph of candy bar sales and see what that looks like? People steal music because they can not because of costs.
6) MUSIC IS THE PRODUCT. You are not paying for bits, bytes or plastic when you purchase music. You are buying the result of human labor. The container is a fixed cost, the labor is not - and despite this all music has pretty much standard pricing at 99 cents per song
7) Everyone expects free music now, you just can't change the rules and expect people to pay for it... yes we can. global anti-piracy legislation and enforcement is just getting started - up till now this game has been largely all mouse and no cat - that's changing... buckle up.
8) Music is not the only industry facing piracy problems... what about software, music, videogames, books... all digitally distributed media is being raped by piracy. Piracy is not a functional part of free market economics.
well that's all for now... have at it. |