Comments on: An Open Letter to David Lowery

By: Charles Ryan

Charles Ryan — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:14:00 +0000

Great piece, and the historical context is a welcome addition to the debate. But I don’t think you connect the dots sufficiently to support what seems to be your point.

Yes, business models change. Yes, technology is disruptive and there are winners and losers from each round of disruption. Maybe, piracy is primarily a symptom of unmet demand. But none of that sets up the final leap necessary to say that an individual’s unethical behavior is excusable.

The phonograph record destroyed the sheet music business. Fine, but that didn’t justify anybody running out and stealing phonograph records because the industry wasn’t fast enough to make the shift.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:00 +0000

Not only are you not entitled to your business model, you’re not entitled to your artificial scarcity. When I copy a song from you, you STILL HAVE THE SONG. How is it stealing when you’ve still got the thing I supposedly stole? Near-infinite quantities of songs can be made with incremental cost very close to zero. Scarcity, for music, is dead.

It’s true that someone (a musician) has to spend time & money to make that first copy of a song, and it’s true that they deserve compensation for doing so. But if musicians are expecting to get paid for EVERY copy of a song, they are not only foolishly naive, they are not being fair — does it really take more effort to record a song that 10,000 people want to listen to, than to record a song that 100,000 people want to listen to? No? Then why should you be paid more for the latter, when the additional copies cost nothing to produce and your effort is the same either way?

As an aside, this same artificial scarcity is coming to physical objects soon, too, in the form of downloadable CAD files for soon-to-be ubiquitous 3D printers. So we, as a society, better get a handle on how to monetize things that have no scarcity. Music may be first but it’s not the end of this.

By: David Eckelberry

David Eckelberry — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:58:00 +0000

Sean, you didn’t answer John’s question.

Overwhelmingly, music is available for sale. Pretty damn conveniently.
Overwhelmingly, music is pirated.

By: seankreynolds

seankreynolds — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:44:00 +0000

It’s easy to buy music if the owner makes it available for sale. The same goes for movies. I’d love to watch Game of Thrones, everyone is raving about it. I’m subscribed to Netflix, but I can’t get it there. I’m subscribed to Hulu, but I can’t get it there. Last time I checked (February), I have to have a (paid) subscription to the HBO channel (and therefore can watch the show online for free as part of my subscription) *or* I have to subscribe to HBO Go. Why do I have to subscribe to that network’s custom service for just one show? Why can’t it be made available on other streaming networks?
The setup is inconvenient. (And that’s for a show that’s actually available. There are many old movies I’d love to be able to watch, but their owners haven’t made them available. So they’re making zero dollars from me while the movies sit in limbo.)
I’m not willing to go through the cost or time to subscribe to HBO or HBO GO service for just one show. I’m also not willing to download it illegally, so I’m stuck. Which is why I haven’t seen the show at all. *shrug*

By: John Fox

John Fox — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:29:00 +0000

I appreciate the historical insight, which gives us hope that the music industry will rise again in a different shape. But I don’t think you can only focus on the pragmatic side of the equation. Is there really no ethical obligations when amassing a musical library?

You keep repeating that the business model is the problem. I agree, it’s a huge problem. But governments usually ban immoral business deals because they consider it stealing (consider: Grooveshark). Do you have to wait for the government to ban immoral activity or should you preemptively not listen to grooveshark?

Also, I’m not sure that you read his article closely enough. He pointed out that it is EXTREMELY easy to buy music legitimately. I open iTunes. Within a couple of clicks I have bought an album. How does that not qualify for your standards of “convenience and access”? How could it possibly be more convenient or more accessible?

I agree that he is not entitled to his business model. But you are not entitled to thievery.