One of the things that I have been unable to resolve for myself is whether people should have to pay for music.
If individuals use music to generate revenue, part of the revenue belongs to the author. Granted. But if I am simply listening to music without paying for it, should I be charged with a crime?
The argument from record companies is that downloading music illegally is like stealing from a shop. The latter is a crime and so should the former be.
I guess the greater question here is who owns the right to music, art, etc., and when do things become a crime?
Who owns music? How far is this discussion away from 'Who owns water and air'? That is the purpose of the next discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Music is the product of creative endeavour. Inasmuch, it should (IMHPO) have a higher place on the Maslowian hierarchy, than "needs" like food, or transportation.
You pay for food and transportation, because someone bore BOTH the opportunity cost (of time that could have been invested in some higher return activity, but was diverted to produce these specific goods and services for you) and the actual marginal cost (inputs, etc.) of producing that good for you.
The interesting thing about truly CREATIVE endeavours, is that the cost structure of the entire production process is a bit wierd.
First off, Music is either
1) Inordinately fleeting and evanescent (absent storage) and
2) Infinitely scaleable, like software (present storage)
So the nature and economics of storage are the key factor that drives what you _should_ pay for music.
We all agree that storage has changed through the centuries. In Ancient Greece's Toga parties, the band had to be live... and so you actually computed the music realtime, and consumed it as a live service, instead of storing. The economics in this case are simple. The musicians have the choice, of spending their time at YOUR home, or goofing off in their own orgies (which may have HUGE utility to an artsy person), or playing elsewhere where they may get a different mix of rewards (payments in hard denarii and recognition/ego-stroking + publicity for future performances). The economics of Music in that situation are quite simple. Only the rich can afford to have it at home, and they pay for it as a professional service (opportunity cost of TIME only). The poor can only enjoy it in public events, where the ceremony is hosted/funded by a rich agent (king, some nobles) to subsidize the opportunity cost of time for the artist (and both the sponsor and the artist benefit from the publicity), and public may pay small amounts to get in, just as a kind of expression of goodwill... a tip if you will. Are you comfortable with this model? Don't you think we should compensate artists for the opportunity cost of their time?
Now, layer on storage, and things get interesting. The economics of music now depart from purely covering the opportunity cost of the artist's time, and have to start covering the cost of the storage substrate, and all the crap work of supply chain management and rights enfoecement that has to be layered on to GET t he music into your hands. We have been through several generations of substrates... LP, tape, CD, and now MP3. It is only now, that the marginal cost of storage has gone to zero. It is only now that the marginal cost of a replication procedure has ALSO effectively gone to zero. So as a consumer, you may FEEL like the music should be free. But does it not behoove that we peer further back into the value chain?
I agree that the recording labels are evil. They perform a necessary economic function (for which there should be a fair, market-set price)
- "finding" artists (editorial)
- "grooming" artists (prof.dev)
- "hyping" artists (mktg, branding)
- "delivering" artists (supply chn)
With the internet, the classic models of how a label does this are all collapsing, so I do agree that a large part of what you have been "conditioned to expect to pay' (the 13-19$/CD, the 0.99$/song) are kind of "fake" and unfair, unless new models are explored.
But at some level, we as a society, owe it to the musicians to compensate them for the opportunity cost of their time. We should compensate the good ones more, and the bad ones less. But we should compensate them all.
No, at a philosophical level, a person pursuing a creative endeavour should NOT seek any compensation, since the creative act is an intensely satisfying experience in and of itself. If that was true, we would treat musicians like we treat high energy physicists and theoretical cosmologists... what they do is intensely pleasurable to themselves (and thus may even forego a compensation of opportunity cost, beyond affording them a median lifestyle via stipends, or grants), and also very useful to society (as a higher level Maslow-ian want-fulfillment... not a basic need).
If you could come up with some "commune system" where artists would be happy to just exist, and produce... and then give away their IP for free... you could argues that society could just have a flat tax... and keep these people paid like schoolteachers... while you listened to their marvels for free.
But... they are not purely pursuing creative endeavour. They have pride and status seeking behavior too. And while mere Editorial/Critical acclaim may satisfy most artists... I am sure that they would be better off if we allowed them to live in the "pursuit of happiness", where money features as an element of the scoring equation and the status differentiator.
I don't think it is fair, for music to be free. It maybe very cheap, on a marginal basis, for the songs that get heard the MOST... but it cannot go to zero. What say?
Post a Comment