I am occasionally reminded of the home-taping version of this when I pull out an LP from the mid-80s and a card drops out with a short missive about how home taping is taking money away from the artist.
I did have a fairly substantial collection of cassettes made from friends' LPs, I'm pretty certain that those recordings pushed me to further investigate the artists in question, resulting in more purchases.
i've pirated it for you. convinced me to subscribe finally so guessing you win! we'll see if google gets free users to it (as they can't see any comment)
I'm finding it difficult to mentally untangle all the different prices at play here... the fact I flunked out of economics class probably doesn't help.
But, I'd argue that just because the marginal cost of producing and distributing a "copy" of a digital album is essentially zero doesn't mean it intrinsically has no value. There are still production costs for the master recording, plus the labor of the songwriters and musicians of course. For physical items, the price of the item has always been higher than the overhead of production, distribution, retail, etc - whatever that remainder is applies just as well to digital. No one is paying for a slab of vinyl in a cardboard sleeve on its own merits as an object.
The secondary market for physical items is a whole other aspect, which doesn't exist for digital (although I guess NFTs are some attempt to change that)... but that's also not really connected to the value of the music, so I'm not sure how to factor that in.
All fair points - but you can’t pirate physical media without production costs, and you can for digital. Even if you assign other production costs to the original digital file, none is carried over to the copy… and a digital copy is indistinguishable from the original
yeah, I do think that's a big difference - at least back in the tape days *someone* you knew probably had to buy the record/tape, and aside from the cost of the blank tape there was a fair amount of time involved in making a copy.
but, overall it comes down to whether you're ok with stealing someone's work. Like Mark above, I had a lot of tapes dubbed from friends tapes/records, and most of what I bought came from Columbia House. I had an insatiable appetite for music and honestly did not have the money to afford to buy much. Now I'm a huge music fan, gainfully employed, and really try to support artists - I've bought thousands of CDs, LPs, and downloads... plus going to live shows, merch, patreon/etc.
so, does the end justify the means? the bands whose tapes I pirated in the 80s and didn't subsequently buy from might have a different opinion...
I’m only reading this now, a year later, not for any economic reason other than my time was occupied reading other things.
As a professor who has only published with university presses, my personal experience is that my peers all care about people reading their work and don’t expect to make money from it. If you are scrupulous about getting permissions to make a course reader, the fee goes to the publisher and supposedly the author gets a cut -- but the lion’s share goes to the publisher.
In Napster’s day, the people fighting it (Metallica) were the mega-acts that made a good percentage from physical sales. Smaller bands wanted to be heard. That was my understanding anyway, and since it nearly paralleled by publishing experience I believed it.
I want to be published because the face that the Press has invested in me is my imprimatur. That’s why I don’t give my work away. But that doesn’t mean I expect to make money for my writing.
I am occasionally reminded of the home-taping version of this when I pull out an LP from the mid-80s and a card drops out with a short missive about how home taping is taking money away from the artist.
I did have a fairly substantial collection of cassettes made from friends' LPs, I'm pretty certain that those recordings pushed me to further investigate the artists in question, resulting in more purchases.
i've pirated it for you. convinced me to subscribe finally so guessing you win! we'll see if google gets free users to it (as they can't see any comment)
https://content.noloveforned.com/post/666747919285829632/an-economic-argument-for-piracy-by-damon-krukowski
I'm finding it difficult to mentally untangle all the different prices at play here... the fact I flunked out of economics class probably doesn't help.
But, I'd argue that just because the marginal cost of producing and distributing a "copy" of a digital album is essentially zero doesn't mean it intrinsically has no value. There are still production costs for the master recording, plus the labor of the songwriters and musicians of course. For physical items, the price of the item has always been higher than the overhead of production, distribution, retail, etc - whatever that remainder is applies just as well to digital. No one is paying for a slab of vinyl in a cardboard sleeve on its own merits as an object.
The secondary market for physical items is a whole other aspect, which doesn't exist for digital (although I guess NFTs are some attempt to change that)... but that's also not really connected to the value of the music, so I'm not sure how to factor that in.
All fair points - but you can’t pirate physical media without production costs, and you can for digital. Even if you assign other production costs to the original digital file, none is carried over to the copy… and a digital copy is indistinguishable from the original
yeah, I do think that's a big difference - at least back in the tape days *someone* you knew probably had to buy the record/tape, and aside from the cost of the blank tape there was a fair amount of time involved in making a copy.
but, overall it comes down to whether you're ok with stealing someone's work. Like Mark above, I had a lot of tapes dubbed from friends tapes/records, and most of what I bought came from Columbia House. I had an insatiable appetite for music and honestly did not have the money to afford to buy much. Now I'm a huge music fan, gainfully employed, and really try to support artists - I've bought thousands of CDs, LPs, and downloads... plus going to live shows, merch, patreon/etc.
so, does the end justify the means? the bands whose tapes I pirated in the 80s and didn't subsequently buy from might have a different opinion...
I’m only reading this now, a year later, not for any economic reason other than my time was occupied reading other things.
As a professor who has only published with university presses, my personal experience is that my peers all care about people reading their work and don’t expect to make money from it. If you are scrupulous about getting permissions to make a course reader, the fee goes to the publisher and supposedly the author gets a cut -- but the lion’s share goes to the publisher.
In Napster’s day, the people fighting it (Metallica) were the mega-acts that made a good percentage from physical sales. Smaller bands wanted to be heard. That was my understanding anyway, and since it nearly paralleled by publishing experience I believed it.
I want to be published because the face that the Press has invested in me is my imprimatur. That’s why I don’t give my work away. But that doesn’t mean I expect to make money for my writing.
Really enjoying/appreciating everyone’s comments, thank you!