Plus, another question must be asked... How important is it to protect a
very small minority of artists' ability to earn $100M for recording one
album (probably around 1 month's work). If there is an ability for most
producers of quality work to support themselves, which I feel there probably
is in a freely downloadable content model, that must be better than the
current situation.
Emlyn
>
> > For example, the Dixie Chicks sold 9 million copies of
> their Fly album in
> > the two years after it was released [1]. It probably sold
> for about $15.
> > If they had reduced the cost to 1/10 as much or $1.50,
> would they have
> > sold 10 times as many copies? 90 million copies? That's
> almost as many
> > as there are households in America (116 million [2]).
> >
> > I don't think the market is that big for the Dixie Chicks' music.
> > Even at $1.50 a copy, they would not sell an album to every
> household
> > in the country. They would make less money at 1/10 the
> price per unit.
> >
> > The Dixie Chicks do better to sell their album for a larger
> amount and
> > sell to fewer people. The exact point of optimality will
> depend on how
> > quickly the market falls off as the price rises.
>
> Look at it from the other direction: the market was willing to cough
> up $100 million dollars to listen to a Dixie Chicks album, in a world
> where those people could download the songs themselves for near-zero.
> That means the mere convenience of getting it on a small disk that
> they can take to the car, the "coolness" of having an authorized copy
> with artwork and liner notes, etc., and perhaps the value of assuaging
> their conscience that they are obeying present law, was worth $100M.
> That's completely on top of what they get for live concerts,
> appearances
> on television, endorsement deals, and other income not dependent on
> IP. Anyone who argues that the age of downloading (which takes away
> only the value of that conscience-stroking) will cause artists to
> starve isn't doing the math.
>
> --
> Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein
> and past,
> are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used
> or modified
> for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or
> notification."--LDC
>
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT