Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » oh swell...
| oh swell... [message #94190] |
Sun, 30 December 2007 22:21  |
![dc[3] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "dc[3] is currently offline")
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it
takes to download...
We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94191 is a reply to message #94190] |
Sun, 30 December 2007 21:39  |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not to fear, the RIAA will eventually make it effectively unattractive for
consumers to purchase commercial recorded music of any kind and put most
major labels out of business - a practice commonly known as "biting the hand
that feeds you". This ruling has the makings of even turning legal download
purchases into a legal quagmire.
The door is wide open for indie artists to wipe the slate clean of this
corporate crap and offer music with a different licensing option. Consumers
just won't (or at least shouldn't) stand for so many restrictions that make
it a royal PITA to buy and listen to music.
I'm all for getting royalties on music for artists, writers, etc, but the
RIAA is about as bad as banpiracy.org and Waves (who have permanently lost
my business) - it's all just lynch mob (emphasis on "mob") tactics with no
intent on actually protecting the creators, just trying to grab
blackmailesque money disguised as legal fees instead of selling a quality
product in a new market.
Seriously, this corporate shortsighted scare tactic crap has to stop. It's
pathetic.
On 12/30/07 11:21 PM, in article 47787c3e$1@linux, "DC"
<dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR200712280069
> 3.html
>
> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>
> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it
> takes to download...
>
> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>
> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94209 is a reply to message #94190] |
Mon, 31 December 2007 10:47 |
|
|
The Answer is and has always bben to "get back to Live playing". The Live
Experience of a 'said" musical act will again emerge as the must have event.
People will pay to see their fav artist perform. These artist(s) can then
sell a CD or data stick at their shows. Just look at the outrageous money
old acts are making $$$ ..These acs did not make these kinds of monies when
They were current..
The video music genre has got to change. Video spins like ring tones must
be counted as "sold" song sold.
As for file sharing, some kind of "Intelligent" tracking software needs to
be attached to each song of a CD that can monitor where it has been transfeered.
As well as, Songs can only be copied once, then locked .. Well, the work
around on this is, to use or copy via analog. Oh well..
Another
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>
>Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>
>Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it
>takes to download...
>
>We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>
>Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94212 is a reply to message #94207] |
Mon, 31 December 2007 11:13 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has an
impact but it isn't the main value.
As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
wouldn't bother with it.
Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and TV,
and with web content.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't been
> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>
> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae dubplates.
> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12" copies
> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall dweebs
> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright law
> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin with.
> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we owe
> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>
> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of data
> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in microeconomics.
> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB
> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work network
> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other research
> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link in
> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall. Soon
> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>
> TCB
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>
>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>
>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it
>> takes to download...
>>
>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>
>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>
>> DC
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94216 is a reply to message #94212] |
Mon, 31 December 2007 13:33 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases,
but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where
prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily) breached.
Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg invented
movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA to produce,
but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum it
was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000 printing
shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years the
output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their
way to being commodity items.
I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic with
the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales because
it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the CDs
to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that price
dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus price
control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place at
a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can be
stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just the
way things are going to go.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>"As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>
>That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
>of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
>are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has an
>impact but it isn't the main value.
>
>As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
>acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>wouldn't bother with it.
>
>Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and TV,
>and with web content.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't been
>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>
>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae
dubplates.
>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12" copies
>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall dweebs
>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright law
>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin
with.
>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we owe
>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>
>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of data
>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in
microeconomics.
>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB
>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work
network
>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other
research
>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link
in
>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
Soon
>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>
>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>
>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it
>>> takes to download...
>>>
>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>
>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94221 is a reply to message #94216] |
Mon, 31 December 2007 13:20 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
certainly true, and predictable.
But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is the
value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
services, no one would be online.
Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity" but
they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's not
just a wad of paper.
I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
demand and build workable business models around that value.
Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as a
fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to hear
that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and live
shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy to
burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we would
agree about that.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases,
> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where
> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily) breached.
> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg invented
> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA to produce,
> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum it
> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000 printing
> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years the
> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their
> way to being commodity items.
>
> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic with
> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales because
> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the CDs
> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>
> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that price
> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus price
> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place at
> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can be
> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just the
> way things are going to go.
>
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>
>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
>
>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has an
>
>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>
>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>
>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>
>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and TV,
>
>> and with web content.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't been
>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>
>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae
> dubplates.
>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12" copies
>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall dweebs
>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright law
>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin
> with.
>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we owe
>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>
>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of data
>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in
> microeconomics.
>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB
>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work
> network
>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other
> research
>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link
> in
>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
> Soon
>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>
>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long it
>>>> takes to download...
>>>>
>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>
>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>
>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94254 is a reply to message #94221] |
Wed, 02 January 2008 08:27 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie,
You're confusing 'value' with 'price.'
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
>certainly true, and predictable.
>
>But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is the
>value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
>creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
>marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
>the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
>for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
>services, no one would be online.
>
>Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
>increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity" but
>they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
>in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's not
>just a wad of paper.
>
>I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
>fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
>has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
>demand and build workable business models around that value.
>
>Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
>online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
>not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
>with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
>portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as a
>fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
>
>Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
>playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
>composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
>
>Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to hear
>that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and live
>shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy to
>burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
>advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
>
>As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we would
>agree about that.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases,
>> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where
>> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily) breached.
>> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg invented
>> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA to
produce,
>> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum
it
>> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000
printing
>> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years the
>> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their
>> way to being commodity items.
>>
>> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic
with
>> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales
because
>> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the
CDs
>> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>>
>> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that
price
>> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus
price
>> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place
at
>> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can
be
>> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just
the
>> way things are going to go.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>>
>>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
>>
>>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
>>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has
an
>>
>>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>>
>>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
>>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>>
>>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>>
>>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and
TV,
>>
>>> and with web content.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't
been
>>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>>
>>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae
>> dubplates.
>>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12"
copies
>>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall
dweebs
>>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright
law
>>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin
>> with.
>>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we
owe
>>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>>
>>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of
data
>>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in
>> microeconomics.
>>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB
>>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work
>> network
>>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other
>> research
>>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link
>> in
>>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
>> Soon
>>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
>>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long
it
>>>>> takes to download...
>>>>>
>>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>
>>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> DC
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94265 is a reply to message #94254] |
Wed, 02 January 2008 10:56 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nope, I got that you said value when you meant price. Thanks for
clarifying that earlier.
Just wanted to add the point that we shouldn't confuse content with
carrier. Lowered carrier cost is an opportunity for expanded content
distribution, rather than an automatic devaluing of the content. Demand
for content and services is what is driving the efficiency of the carrier.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
TCB wrote:
> Jamie,
>
> You're confusing 'value' with 'price.'
>
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
>> certainly true, and predictable.
>>
>> But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is the
>
>> value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
>> creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
>> marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
>> the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
>> for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
>> services, no one would be online.
>>
>> Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
>> increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity" but
>
>> they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
>> in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's not
>
>> just a wad of paper.
>>
>> I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
>> fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
>
>> has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
>> demand and build workable business models around that value.
>>
>> Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
>> online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
>> not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
>> with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
>> portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as a
>> fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
>>
>> Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
>> playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
>> composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
>>
>> Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to hear
>
>> that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and live
>
>> shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy to
>
>> burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
>> advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
>>
>> As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we would
>
>> agree about that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases,
>>> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where
>>> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily) breached.
>>> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg invented
>>> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA to
> produce,
>>> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum
> it
>>> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000
> printing
>>> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years the
>>> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their
>>> way to being commodity items.
>>>
>>> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic
> with
>>> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales
> because
>>> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the
> CDs
>>> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>>>
>>> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that
> price
>>> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus
> price
>>> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place
> at
>>> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can
> be
>>> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just
> the
>>> way things are going to go.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>>>
>>>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
>>>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>>>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
>
>>>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has
> an
>>>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>>>
>>>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>
>>>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
>
>>>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>
>>>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>>>
>>>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>>>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>
>>>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and
> TV,
>>>> and with web content.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't
> been
>>>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae
>>> dubplates.
>>>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12"
> copies
>>>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall
> dweebs
>>>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright
> law
>>>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin
>>> with.
>>>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told we
> owe
>>>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of
> data
>>>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity in
>>> microeconomics.
>>>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu. 700MB
>>>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my work
>>> network
>>>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other
>>> research
>>>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest link
>>> in
>>>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
>>> Soon
>>>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
>>>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>>>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long
> it
>>>>>> takes to download...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94281 is a reply to message #94265] |
Wed, 02 January 2008 17:29 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Except that the world has never worked that way. I didn't say with enough
bandwidth everything is free, I said that as bandwidth (and storage) increase
the price of data will inevitably decrease. It might not be a linear relationship
and it might not happen right away, but it's the way the world works.
And it doesn't matter whether an artist wants to be a T-Shirt shop or a bucket
of warm spit. The tidal wave does not ask permission from the house it will
soon wash to sea.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Nope, I got that you said value when you meant price. Thanks for
>clarifying that earlier.
>
>Just wanted to add the point that we shouldn't confuse content with
>carrier. Lowered carrier cost is an opportunity for expanded content
>distribution, rather than an automatic devaluing of the content. Demand
>for content and services is what is driving the efficiency of the carrier.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> Jamie,
>>
>> You're confusing 'value' with 'price.'
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
>>> certainly true, and predictable.
>>>
>>> But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is
the
>>
>>> value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
>>> creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
>>> marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
>>> the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
>>> for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
>>> services, no one would be online.
>>>
>>> Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
>>> increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity" but
>>
>>> they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
>>> in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's
not
>>
>>> just a wad of paper.
>>>
>>> I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
>>> fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
>>
>>> has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
>>> demand and build workable business models around that value.
>>>
>>> Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
>>> online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
>>> not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
>>> with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
>>> portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as a
>>> fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
>>>
>>> Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
>>> playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
>>> composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
>>>
>>> Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to hear
>>
>>> that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and live
>>
>>> shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy
to
>>
>>> burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
>>> advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
>>>
>>> As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we would
>>
>>> agree about that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases,
>>>> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where
>>>> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily)
breached.
>>>> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg
invented
>>>> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA
to
>> produce,
>>>> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum
>> it
>>>> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000
>> printing
>>>> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years
the
>>>> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their
>>>> way to being commodity items.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic
>> with
>>>> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales
>> because
>>>> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the
>> CDs
>>>> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>>>>
>>>> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that
>> price
>>>> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus
>> price
>>>> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place
>> at
>>>> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can
>> be
>>>> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just
>> the
>>>> way things are going to go.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
>>>>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>>>>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
>>
>>>>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has
>> an
>>>>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>>
>>>>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
>>
>>>>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>>
>>>>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>>>>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>>
>>>>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and
>> TV,
>>>>> and with web content.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't
>> been
>>>>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae
>>>> dubplates.
>>>>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12"
>> copies
>>>>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall
>> dweebs
>>>>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright
>> law
>>>>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin
>>>> with.
>>>>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told
we
>> owe
>>>>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of
>> data
>>>>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity
in
>>>> microeconomics.
>>>>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu.
700MB
>>>>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my
work
>>>> network
>>>>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>>>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other
>>>> research
>>>>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest
link
>>>> in
>>>>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
>>>> Soon
>>>>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
>>>>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>>>>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long
>> it
>>>>>>> takes to download...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>>>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94286 is a reply to message #94281] |
Wed, 02 January 2008 17:35 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> Except that the world has never worked that way. I didn't say with enough
> bandwidth everything is free, I said that as bandwidth (and storage) increase
> the price of data will inevitably decrease. It might not be a linear relationship
> and it might not happen right away, but it's the way the world works.
We agree that costs are going down.
I think where I part ways with you on this one is the vague translation
from "content" to "data." It's as if a field of vegetables and a field
of nuclear waste were combined into the single description of "dirt."
It's not all just "dirt." What's actually in the field matters.
Likewise all content and services can't be merely hand waved away as
"data." What's actually encoded into the bitstream matters.
I see higher data bandwidth as being beneficial to producing and
distributing content and services, not detrimental. Potentially better
for price, for increased consumer and artist choices, and certainly
better for value. And as costs go down for moving bits around, woohoo,
that's lower overhead.
There are companies being built on the increasing bandwidth and making
money. Bigger bandwidth means better content and services can be
offered. The internet is growing as the content and services improve and
the demand continues to increase.
This month, rumor has it, iTunes will start renting movies. Making more
money on the increasing bandwidth available.
> And it doesn't matter whether an artist wants to be a T-Shirt shop or a bucket
> of warm spit. The tidal wave does not ask permission from the house it will
> soon wash to sea.
Nor does the independent artist have to be either a T shirt shop or a
bucket of warm spit. They can do traditional merch if it fits, or they
can find another business model. Instead of a destructive tidal wave,
you could just as well visualize continuing technical improvements as a
welcoming thermal to soar higher. An engine for success. Or back to your
waves analogy, surf's up!
The artist needs to develop a fan base willing to pony up something for
the art, and the low cost of moving bits around can help facilitate that
connection between artist and fan. The ponying up can be direct
purchase, it can be purchase through a digital music portal, it can be
presale, sponsorship, fan club dues, clicking through ads on the
artist's site or (your great idea here). As bandwidth increases and data
costs go down, more possibilities open up for creative thinkers. Out of
transformational chaos will arise the next thing, because THAT'S the way
the world works. :^)
Bottom line, the decrease in costs to move data can help artists. It
doesn't have to hurt artists. To assume it would necessarily hurt
artists (if that's what you're assuming) reveals a possible creativity
gap. Much like the one traditional record companies are struggling with,
as they strive to protect the selling of exclusive and often mediocre
mass-market content on plastic disks in an increasingly digital and
niche market world.
Call me an optimist, but bandwidth improvements are due to a growing
market and growing demand. And digital distribution has a huge upside in
efficiency and scalability. Do we really disagree about this?
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Nope, I got that you said value when you meant price. Thanks for
>> clarifying that earlier.
>>
>> Just wanted to add the point that we shouldn't confuse content with
>> carrier. Lowered carrier cost is an opportunity for expanded content
>> distribution, rather than an automatic devaluing of the content. Demand
>
>> for content and services is what is driving the efficiency of the carrier.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> TCB wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> You're confusing 'value' with 'price.'
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
>>>> certainly true, and predictable.
>>>>
>>>> But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is
> the
>>>> value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
>
>>>> creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
>
>>>> marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
>
>>>> the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
>
>>>> for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
>>>> services, no one would be online.
>>>>
>>>> Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
>>>> increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity" but
>>>> they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
>
>>>> in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's
> not
>>>> just a wad of paper.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
>
>>>> fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
>>>> has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
>
>>>> demand and build workable business models around that value.
>>>>
>>>> Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
>>>> online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
>
>>>> not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
>
>>>> with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
>>>> portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as a
>
>>>> fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
>>>>
>>>> Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
>
>>>> playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
>>>> composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to hear
>>>> that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and live
>>>> shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy
> to
>>>> burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
>
>>>> advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
>>>>
>>>> As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we would
>>>> agree about that.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data decreases,
>>>>> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations where
>>>>> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily)
> breached.
>>>>> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg
> invented
>>>>> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA
> to
>>> produce,
>>>>> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum
>>> it
>>>>> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over 1000
>>> printing
>>>>> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years
> the
>>>>> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on their
>>>>> way to being commodity items.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic
>>> with
>>>>> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales
>>> because
>>>>> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy the
>>> CDs
>>>>> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how that
>>> price
>>>>> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus
>>> price
>>>>> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one place
>>> at
>>>>> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music can
>>> be
>>>>> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's just
>>> the
>>>>> way things are going to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the supply
>>>>>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>>>>>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees, they
>>>>>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price has
>>> an
>>>>>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>>>>>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing or
>>>>>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>>>>>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>>>>>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>>>>>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio and
>>> TV,
>>>>>> and with web content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't
>>> been
>>>>>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade reggae
>>>>> dubplates.
>>>>>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen 12"
>>> copies
>>>>>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall
>>> dweebs
>>>>>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright
>>> law
>>>>>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to begin
>>>>> with.
>>>>>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told
> we
>>> owe
>>>>>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value of
>>> data
>>>>>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity
> in
>>>>> microeconomics.
>>>>>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu.
> 700MB
>>>>>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my
> work
>>>>> network
>>>>>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>>>>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some other
>>>>> research
>>>>>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest
> link
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
>>>>> Soon
>>>>>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be available
>>>>>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into your
>>>>>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how long
>>> it
>>>>>>>> takes to download...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>>>>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94314 is a reply to message #94286] |
Thu, 03 January 2008 12:27 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The question we were discussing was not whether bandwidth is good or bad for
a certain kind of artist, or good or bad for a particular industry, or good
or bad for 'content and services' which means I'm not sure what. What I said,
and what you're basically agreeing to, is that as bandwidth increases data
gets cheaper.
Now then, obviously if one is making horrible music the 'content' is less
likely to draw customers to use some of their bandwidth to get/purchase it.
However, even if you have the super bitchingist content ever you will still
be subject to the price dynamic--i.e. the easier it is to get the lower the
price you will get for it. You can try to create some artificial scarcity
but so far the only two ways tried (DRM and suing your customers) have been
dismal failures.
To use the book example again. Illuminated manuscripts are, in my opinion,
some of the most beautiful objects ever created by the mind of man. If I
ever get rich I will certainly own a few. I'm sure your Medieval Scribes
Local 310 saw the first printed books and scoffed saying, 'Our content and
services are SO much better than this trash we don't even need to worry.
Who would want one of these hideous things, even if they are cheap?' And
50 years later there were probably more printed books in circulation than
had been produced by hand in the history of Europe, and the scribe business
was in serious trouble. Track the history of the internet from Compuserve
and AOL through MSN and the telcos down to google and bittorrent and MySpace
and you'll see it getting stupider, easier, cheaper, and more filled with
porn. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, for that you'll have
to consult someone confident about such things like an ethicist or DC, I'm
just pointing out the way things have worked so far, not just with the internet
but other technologies as well. I don't see whey something as simple as music
distribution will be able to make the rain fall up when it comes to the dynamics
of price and scarcity.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>TCB wrote:
>> Except that the world has never worked that way. I didn't say with enough
>> bandwidth everything is free, I said that as bandwidth (and storage) increase
>> the price of data will inevitably decrease. It might not be a linear relationship
>> and it might not happen right away, but it's the way the world works.
>
>We agree that costs are going down.
>
>I think where I part ways with you on this one is the vague translation
>from "content" to "data." It's as if a field of vegetables and a field
>of nuclear waste were combined into the single description of "dirt."
>It's not all just "dirt." What's actually in the field matters.
>
>Likewise all content and services can't be merely hand waved away as
>"data." What's actually encoded into the bitstream matters.
>
>I see higher data bandwidth as being beneficial to producing and
>distributing content and services, not detrimental. Potentially better
>for price, for increased consumer and artist choices, and certainly
>better for value. And as costs go down for moving bits around, woohoo,
>that's lower overhead.
>
>There are companies being built on the increasing bandwidth and making
>money. Bigger bandwidth means better content and services can be
>offered. The internet is growing as the content and services improve and
>the demand continues to increase.
>
>This month, rumor has it, iTunes will start renting movies. Making more
>money on the increasing bandwidth available.
>
>
>> And it doesn't matter whether an artist wants to be a T-Shirt shop or
a bucket
>> of warm spit. The tidal wave does not ask permission from the house it
will
>> soon wash to sea.
>
>Nor does the independent artist have to be either a T shirt shop or a
>bucket of warm spit. They can do traditional merch if it fits, or they
>can find another business model. Instead of a destructive tidal wave,
>you could just as well visualize continuing technical improvements as a
>welcoming thermal to soar higher. An engine for success. Or back to your
>waves analogy, surf's up!
>
>The artist needs to develop a fan base willing to pony up something for
>the art, and the low cost of moving bits around can help facilitate that
>connection between artist and fan. The ponying up can be direct
>purchase, it can be purchase through a digital music portal, it can be
>presale, sponsorship, fan club dues, clicking through ads on the
>artist's site or (your great idea here). As bandwidth increases and data
>costs go down, more possibilities open up for creative thinkers. Out of
>transformational chaos will arise the next thing, because THAT'S the way
>the world works. :^)
>
>Bottom line, the decrease in costs to move data can help artists. It
>doesn't have to hurt artists. To assume it would necessarily hurt
>artists (if that's what you're assuming) reveals a possible creativity
>gap. Much like the one traditional record companies are struggling with,
>as they strive to protect the selling of exclusive and often mediocre
>mass-market content on plastic disks in an increasingly digital and
>niche market world.
>
>Call me an optimist, but bandwidth improvements are due to a growing
>market and growing demand. And digital distribution has a huge upside in
>efficiency and scalability. Do we really disagree about this?
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> TCB
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Nope, I got that you said value when you meant price. Thanks for
>>> clarifying that earlier.
>>>
>>> Just wanted to add the point that we shouldn't confuse content with
>>> carrier. Lowered carrier cost is an opportunity for expanded content
>>> distribution, rather than an automatic devaluing of the content. Demand
>>
>>> for content and services is what is driving the efficiency of the carrier.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TCB wrote:
>>>> Jamie,
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing 'value' with 'price.'
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
>>>>> certainly true, and predictable.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is
>> the
>>>>> value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
>>
>>>>> creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
>>
>>>>> marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
>>
>>>>> the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
>>
>>>>> for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
>>>>> services, no one would be online.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
>>>>> increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity"
but
>>>>> they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
>>
>>>>> in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's
>> not
>>>>> just a wad of paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
>>
>>>>> fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
>>>>> has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
>>
>>>>> demand and build workable business models around that value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
>>>>> online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
>>
>>>>> not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
>>
>>>>> with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
>>>>> portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as
a
>>
>>>>> fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
>>
>>>>> playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
>>>>> composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to
hear
>>>>> that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and
live
>>>>> shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy
>> to
>>>>> burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
>>
>>>>> advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we
would
>>>>> agree about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data
decreases,
>>>>>> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations
where
>>>>>> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily)
>> breached.
>>>>>> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg
>> invented
>>>>>> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA
>> to
>>>> produce,
>>>>>> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum
>>>> it
>>>>>> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over
1000
>>>> printing
>>>>>> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years
>> the
>>>>>> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on
their
>>>>>> way to being commodity items.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic
>>>> with
>>>>>> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales
>>>> because
>>>>>> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy
the
>>>> CDs
>>>>>> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how
that
>>>> price
>>>>>> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus
>>>> price
>>>>>> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one
place
>>>> at
>>>>>> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music
can
>>>> be
>>>>>> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's
just
>>>> the
>>>>>> way things are going to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the
supply
>>>>>>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>>>>>>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees,
they
>>>>>>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price
has
>>>> an
>>>>>>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>>>>>>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing
or
>>>>>>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>>>>>>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>>>>>>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>>>>>>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio
and
>>>> TV,
>>>>>>> and with web content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't
>>>> been
>>>>>>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade
reggae
>>>>>> dubplates.
>>>>>>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen
12"
>>>> copies
>>>>>>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall
>>>> dweebs
>>>>>>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright
>>>> law
>>>>>>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to
begin
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told
>> we
>>>> owe
>>>>>>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value
of
>>>> data
>>>>>>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity
>> in
>>>>>> microeconomics.
>>>>>>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu.
>> 700MB
>>>>>>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my
>> work
>>>>>> network
>>>>>>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>>>>>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some
other
>>>>>> research
>>>>>>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest
>> link
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
>>>>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be
available
>>>>>>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into
your
>>>>>>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how
long
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> takes to download...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>>>>>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94315 is a reply to message #94314] |
Thu, 03 January 2008 12:17 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> The question we were discussing was not whether bandwidth is good or bad for
> a certain kind of artist, or good or bad for a particular industry, or good
> or bad for 'content and services' which means I'm not sure what. What I said,
> and what you're basically agreeing to, is that as bandwidth increases data
> gets cheaper.
Cheaper to move. Which makes it cheaper to deliver content. Which also
makes it possible to sell content that uses more data, like movies.
Maybe we agree on that, too.
> Now then, obviously if one is making horrible music the 'content' is less
> likely to draw customers to use some of their bandwidth to get/purchase it.
Yep. Although actually, LCD mass market content, some of it qualifying
as "horrible" IMO, does get sold. Granted, that's a matter of taste. :^)
But with more bandwidth, niche markets with more of a quality focus can
be better served.
> However, even if you have the super bitchingist content ever you will still
> be subject to the price dynamic--i.e. the easier it is to get the lower the
> price you will get for it. You can try to create some artificial scarcity
> but so far the only two ways tried (DRM and suing your customers) have been
> dismal failures.
Dismal failures? Better define that.
iTunes has sold _billions_ of downloads at a set price that hasn't gone
down. Independent artists get a _higher_ percentage from iTunes than
from a record company. Other download services are also selling music.
CD Baby and other independent companies seems to be doing pretty well
selling CDs over the internet and feeding mp3s to pay-for-download sites.
These approaches are _enabled_ by having more available bandwidth. Not
slowed down by it.
> To use the book example again. Illuminated manuscripts are, in my opinion,
> some of the most beautiful objects ever created by the mind of man. If I
> ever get rich I will certainly own a few. I'm sure your Medieval Scribes
> Local 310 saw the first printed books and scoffed saying, 'Our content and
> services are SO much better than this trash we don't even need to worry.
> Who would want one of these hideous things, even if they are cheap?' And
> 50 years later there were probably more printed books in circulation than
> had been produced by hand in the history of Europe, and the scribe business
> was in serious trouble.
Was it? Judging by you there's still a demand, and as you say, very few
can be produced. So it doesn't take much of a demand to keep it going.
Somewhere, someone is scribing away as we speak, betcha.
At the same time, a new market for printed books was born and grew into
what we have today.
The "bandwidth" has increased, delivery costs have dropped. Yet books
themselves still have a purchase price, the cost has not dropped to
where selling books loses money. They still have a value that people pay
money for, enough to fund profits. It's very much a viable business.
Probably some of the viability is due to the technology improvements
that help grow the market, and not despite them.
Has the price of an average book dropped in the last few years?
> Track the history of the internet from Compuserve
> and AOL through MSN and the telcos down to google and bittorrent and MySpace
> and you'll see it getting stupider, easier, cheaper, and more filled with
> porn.
Porn was a media tech driver long before the internet.
The progression of the internet shows growth, true. But it's not a
blueprint for the failure of music as a business which, despite any
denials you seem to be implying. Track the history and you'll see a new
medium for marketing and distribution. So as data gets cheaper, the
opportunity for content distribution has gone up.
Although I think what you're really afraid of is piracy. That's what the
record companies are afraid of.
> I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, for that you'll have
> to consult someone confident about such things like an ethicist or DC,
If you mean piracy, it's wrong. But if you mean exposure as a marketing
vehicle for the artist, it's right.
Nice dig at Don, now he's going to have to jump in and explain the
connection between internet piracy and Darwin...
> I'm
> just pointing out the way things have worked so far, not just with the internet
> but other technologies as well. I don't see whey something as simple as music
> distribution will be able to make the rain fall up when it comes to the dynamics
> of price and scarcity.
I think I see where you're coming from. But I prefer to be more
optimistic and allow for innovation, and recognize potential new markets
and new business models.
So if your entire point is that lower overhead can bring end-user prices
down, I agree, to a point. But if you are implying that lower overhead
means the end of the music business or other content businesses online,
I would disagree. It's a time of opportunity.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> TCB wrote:
>>> Except that the world has never worked that way. I didn't say with enough
>>> bandwidth everything is free, I said that as bandwidth (and storage) increase
>>> the price of data will inevitably decrease. It might not be a linear relationship
>>> and it might not happen right away, but it's the way the world works.
>
>> We agree that costs are going down.
>>
>> I think where I part ways with you on this one is the vague translation
>
>>from "content" to "data." It's as if a field of vegetables and a field
>> of nuclear waste were combined into the single description of "dirt."
>> It's not all just "dirt." What's actually in the field matters.
>>
>> Likewise all content and services can't be merely hand waved away as
>> "data." What's actually encoded into the bitstream matters.
>>
>> I see higher data bandwidth as being beneficial to producing and
>> distributing content and services, not detrimental. Potentially better
>> for price, for increased consumer and artist choices, and certainly
>> better for value. And as costs go down for moving bits around, woohoo,
>> that's lower overhead.
>>
>> There are companies being built on the increasing bandwidth and making
>> money. Bigger bandwidth means better content and services can be
>> offered. The internet is growing as the content and services improve and
>
>> the demand continues to increase.
>>
>> This month, rumor has it, iTunes will start renting movies. Making more
>
>> money on the increasing bandwidth available.
>>
>>
>>> And it doesn't matter whether an artist wants to be a T-Shirt shop or
> a bucket
>>> of warm spit. The tidal wave does not ask permission from the house it
> will
>>> soon wash to sea.
>> Nor does the independent artist have to be either a T shirt shop or a
>> bucket of warm spit. They can do traditional merch if it fits, or they
>> can find another business model. Instead of a destructive tidal wave,
>> you could just as well visualize continuing technical improvements as a
>
>> welcoming thermal to soar higher. An engine for success. Or back to your
>
>> waves analogy, surf's up!
>>
>> The artist needs to develop a fan base willing to pony up something for
>
>> the art, and the low cost of moving bits around can help facilitate that
>
>> connection between artist and fan. The ponying up can be direct
>> purchase, it can be purchase through a digital music portal, it can be
>> presale, sponsorship, fan club dues, clicking through ads on the
>> artist's site or (your great idea here). As bandwidth increases and data
>
>> costs go down, more possibilities open up for creative thinkers. Out of
>
>> transformational chaos will arise the next thing, because THAT'S the way
>
>> the world works. :^)
>>
>> Bottom line, the decrease in costs to move data can help artists. It
>> doesn't have to hurt artists. To assume it would necessarily hurt
>> artists (if that's what you're assuming) reveals a possible creativity
>> gap. Much like the one traditional record companies are struggling with,
>
>> as they strive to protect the selling of exclusive and often mediocre
>> mass-market content on plastic disks in an increasingly digital and
>> niche market world.
>>
>> Call me an optimist, but bandwidth improvements are due to a growing
>> market and growing demand. And digital distribution has a huge upside in
>
>> efficiency and scalability. Do we really disagree about this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> Nope, I got that you said value when you meant price. Thanks for
>>>> clarifying that earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Just wanted to add the point that we shouldn't confuse content with
>>>> carrier. Lowered carrier cost is an opportunity for expanded content
>
>>>> distribution, rather than an automatic devaluing of the content. Demand
>>>> for content and services is what is driving the efficiency of the carrier.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> You're confusing 'value' with 'price.'
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If you're saying costs of delivering data is decreasing, that's
>>>>>> certainly true, and predictable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the primary driver of the decrease in data transmission costs is
>>> the
>>>>>> value of the content and services that people are seeking. The demand
>>>>>> creates opportunity. Consequently, delivery capacity is added by the
>>>>>> marketplace. Adding more delivery capacity doesn't necessarily devalue
>>>>>> the products being delivered. Rather, it's a consequence of the demand
>>>>>> for the content and services. Without compelling content and useful
>
>>>>>> services, no one would be online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gutenberg's invention sparked a huge new marketplace of books. It
>>>>>> increased rather than reduced value. You can call books "commodity"
> but
>>>>>> they aren't like an interchangeable computer part. There must be value
>>>>>> in the content itself for anyone to seek out a particular book. It's
>>> not
>>>>>> just a wad of paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe the dynamic of a growing marketplace is something to
>>>>>> fear. People are becoming more involved with content, not less. Content
>>>>>> has value when people want that content. The challenge is to grow that
>>>>>> demand and build workable business models around that value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple has done pretty well, for example, with iPods and the iTunes
>
>>>>>> online store. They sell music encoded as ones and zeros, but they are
>>>>>> not marketing the ones and zeros, that's merely the carrier (a carrier
>>>>>> with some major advantages over plastic disks). They are marketing
>
>>>>>> portable, quick and convenient music and video playback hardware as
> a
>>>>>> fashion accessory, and the artists are getting paid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another model is the one you suggest, selling ancillary products and
>>>>>> playing live. Those ideas won't work for every artist (especially
>>>>>> composers who don't play live), but they aren't the only possibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Along those lines, it's a bit tiresome for independent musicians to
> hear
>>>>>> that music should be given away for free to promote live shows, and
> live
>>>>>> shows should be done at a loss to promote the music. It would be easy
>>> to
>>>>>> burn the candle at both ends with that combination of common armchair
>>>>>> advice. Also, not every artist aspires to be a T-shirt shop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the RIAA, they are not a forward thinking bunch. I think we
> would
>>>>>> agree about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, maybe I put that incorrectly. I should say the price of data
> decreases,
>>>>>>> but I stick to it. Just as there are some microeconomic situations
> where
>>>>>>> prices can behave oddly, on occasion this rule can be (temporarily)
>>> breached.
>>>>>>> Technological innovations in general are hard to contain. Gutenberg
>>> invented
>>>>>>> movable type in 1452. Even with typesetting books were a major PITA
>>> to
>>>>> produce,
>>>>>>> but in comparison to copying them by hand using tempura ink on vellum
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> was a serious step in the right direction. By 1500 there were over
> 1000
>>>>> printing
>>>>>>> shops in Europe producing 20 million books yearly. So in fifty years
>>> the
>>>>>>> output went from nearly zero to 20 million, and books were well on
> their
>>>>>>> way to being commodity items.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see how the 'content providers' are going to fight that dynamic
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the internet. OpenBSD used to make a lot of their money from CD sales
>>>>> because
>>>>>>> it was a huge PITA to download over a slow connection. I still buy
> the
>>>>> CDs
>>>>>>> to support the project, but I download the ISOs if I need them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're in the business of selling one and zeros I don't see how
> that
>>>>> price
>>>>>>> dynamic doesn't eventually win out. You can create scarcity (and thus
>>>>> price
>>>>>>> control) with a live show (no band/artist can be in more than one
> place
>>>>> at
>>>>>>> a time) a T-Shirt, and a lot of other things, but as long as music
> can
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> stored as 1s adn 0s, which means for the foreseeable future, it's
> just
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> way things are going to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "As bandwidth increases the value of data decreases."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not automatically true. That would be like saying when the
> supply
>>>>>>>> of trees goes up, the value of books and newspapers goes down. It
>
>>>>>>>> doesn't necessarily work that way. You're not just selling trees,
> they
>>>>>>>> are a carrier for the content you are selling. The carrier price
> has
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> impact but it isn't the main value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as there is a demand for the content itself, there is value.
>>>>>>>> When people show an interest in your content by listening/viewing
> or
>>>>>>>> acquiring it, they are reaffirming that it has value. Otherwise they
>>>>>>>> wouldn't bother with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Granted, when content becomes easier to acquire without paying, there's
>>>>>>>> a marketing and business model challenge. But it's not insurmountable.
>>>>>>>> Companies have created viable businesses with over-the-air radio
> and
>>>>> TV,
>>>>>>>> and with web content.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are you even the _tiniest_ bit surprised by this? If so, you haven't
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> watching the RIAA closely enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a few online places where friends of mine and I trade
> reggae
>>>>>>> dubplates.
>>>>>>>>> We're talking super obscure records that had maybe a half dozen
> 12"
>>>>> copies
>>>>>>>>> made for sound systems. They're hard to find but for true dancehall
>>>>> dweebs
>>>>>>>>> like me they might as well be made of gold. On top of that copyright
>>>>> law
>>>>>>>>> in Jamaica is roughly on par with that of Macedonia and China to
> begin
>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>>> But we all are terrified we'll get sued at some point and be told
>>> we
>>>>> owe
>>>>>>>>> $10k/song for records nobody else wants.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this will only get crazier. As bandwidth increases the value
> of
>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>> decreases. It's as simple and unchangeable as the laws of scarcity
>>> in
>>>>>>> microeconomics.
>>>>>>>>> I recently did a bittorrent download of the new version of Ubuntu.
>>> 700MB
>>>>>>>>> on a cable modem line and it was done in less than an hour. On my
>>> work
>>>>>>> network
>>>>>>>>> (100 mb/s pretty clean until it hits the student network) file transfers
>>>>>>>>> to/from other universities (we have quicker fiber links to some
> other
>>>>>>> research
>>>>>>>>> institutions) can get close to theoretical maximum of the weakest
>>> link
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the network chain, in our case the 100 mb connection on our firewall.
>>>>>>> Soon
>>>>>>>>> enough that kind of bandwidth, or something close to it, will be
> available
>>>>>>>>> at home. Not sure what the RIAA will be doing then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12 /28/AR2007122800693.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given the fact that the only way to get uncompressed audio into
> your
>>>>>>>>>> computer or iPod is to copy it from a CD, this is bad news indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where am I supposed to buy a 16/44.1 download? Never mind how
> long
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> takes to download...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have always been able to copy our own records and CD's to cassette
>>>>>>>>>> for use in the car, why not for the iPod?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's hope the RIAA loses this one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: oh swell... [message #94321 is a reply to message #94314] |
Thu, 03 January 2008 18:37 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>Track the history of the internet from Compuserve
>and AOL through MSN and the telcos down to google and bittorrent and MySpace
>and you'll see it getting stupider, easier, cheaper, and more filled with
>porn. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, for that you'll have
>to consult someone confident about such things like an ethicist or DC, I'm
>just pointing out the way things have worked so far, not just with the internet
>but other technologies as well. I don't see whey something as simple as
music
>distribution will be able to make the rain fall up when it comes to the
dynamics
>of price and scarcity.
Of course, the question remains as to whether the technology
influences the culture or the culture influences the technology.
To completely disregard the ethics of stealing music is to
disregard the forces that make those manuscripts you like
so valuable. Scarcity, yes, but quality too.
Stealing music reduces the likelihood of more good music
being made. The worst are not the kids. They simply are doing
what kids do. The utter lack of good parenting, compounded
by the would-be-hip older folks and their brave-new-digital-world
have left a vacuum of moral reasoning in the culture that kids
will only amplify. In this Lord of the Flies world of youth worship
how could it be otherwise?
OTOH, most young people have a friend or classmate in a band
or rapping. How hard is it to tell them that it is wrong to steal
from their friend? How hard is it to make the larger point that
stealing hurts music, once you have made the smaller point that
stealing hurts their friend?
Kids are smarter tham we imagine and they look for us as leaders.
Unfortunately we are usually total crap at that job.
(and a bunch of us are running for president)
DC
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 24 15:40:54 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01296 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
