As I have said before, the VAST majority of music listeners do not attend concerts, buy promotional products, nor purchase limited edition CDs. If the artists give the music away they will lose a significant portion of their income.

That would explain why many artists who have tried it have found they earned more money by embracing the model.

So, actually, you’re wrong.

Want to understand why? Learn about how scaling works:

http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2008/11/the-miraculous.html

You don’t need everyone to buy.

People are willing to pay for music. This is evident from the success of Amazon.com’s music download service, from the success of iTunes, and many many other pay services.

*Some* people are today. What we’re worried about is in the future. When more and more musicians realize they’re giving music away and making more money, you don’t want to be the musician holding out.

The fact that you are defending piracy as “free publicity” is unforgiveable.

Please explain how showing musicians how to make more money is “unforgiveable”?

The continued success and growth of comercial music creation whether in it’s current form or some other business model is tied to the fact that there is value in the music.

No one said anything else. You seem to be confused between value and price. They are not the same. Price is impacted by value, but price is determined by supply and demand. If supply is infinite… well, price is going to come under pressure. That doesn’t mean there’s no value, however. In fact, it’s quite valuable. The trick is using that value to increase the price of some scarce good.

For you to say that artists are losing “goodwill” is a strawman argument.

It is not a strawman. A strawman is a made up argument that I knock down. I am not knocking down the fact that they are losing goodwill.

You are ignoring the fact that the artist are losing revenue and saying, oh but the goodwill would be equal to the lost revenue.

There is no revenue “lost.” You cannot lose revenue you never had. There IS a business model decision, and that decision may result in less revenue than other options. Your argument is that giving away music will result in less revenue — that’s a business model decision, not about “loss.”

I, on the other hand, have presented evidence in both economic models and individual examples that show that giving away infinite goods can and often does increase income via a larger market for scarce goods.

Finally, I never said “goodwill equals the lost revenue.” First of all, that’s because I don’t believe there’s “lost revenue” but more importantly because I never have said that you should just give away music for goodwill’s sake and sit back and expect to make money. I have made it clear (though you seem to have missed the message) that the idea is to put in place a comprehensive business model that allows you to earn more money, in part thanks to the goodwill.

But you claiming that I said “goodwill will equal lost revenue” — THAT is a strawman. It’s an argument I did not make that you have chosen to knock down.

You constantly condemn the the RIAA for using unsubstantiated numbers and you have just commited an agregious violation. Not only do you not have ANY proof that the “goodwill” produced ANY sales at all, but you are attaching it to an astronomical figure.

We’re still talking about your strawman, so I’m not sure what I have to defend. I never said goodwill produces sales. I said a good business model, combined with a good product produces sales.

1) Consumers WILL download it (there is NO question about that)

That happens either way.

2) Consumers WILL share it (it happens illegally even NOW)

Yes.

a) They can earn money from concerts. problem 1: some artists are TERRIBLE performers, other artists are STUDIO MUSICIANS who NEVER perform on tour). Problem 2: artists are already making money this way, its how many are making the majority of their money today. Problem 3: to replace the revenue lost from the SALE of their music they will have to raise ticket prices or perform more often (thus blowing your “scarce good” theory – it becomes much much less scarce if they are playing arenas every night of the week.

I’m not sure why this needs to be repeated, because I have addressed these critiques in detail. But, once again, let’s dispel your myths…

“Not everyone is a good performer.”

Nor did I say that concerts are the only way to make money. So, I’m not sure why this matters.

Trent Reznor made $1.6 million in a week selling other scarce goods that had nothing to do with concerts.

Performances can be a lucrative part of the business model, but they don’t need to be.

Finally, saying that not everyone likes to perform and therefore we should allow them to use a gov’t granted monopoly to boost up their business, is like saying of shop owners “not everyone likes to work 9 to 5, so the gov’t should pass a law saying shops can only be open from noon to 3.

If you don’t want to do what it takes to be successful in the market, I have no sympathy for you.

What about studio musicians

We’ve discussed studio musicians at length. Most are already paid on a work-for-hire basis anyway, so there’s no reason for that to change. You pay the musician for his or her time and that’s that. Problem solved.

Problem 2: artists are already making money this way, its how many are making the majority of their money today. Problem 3: to replace the revenue lost from the SALE of their music they will have to raise ticket prices or perform more often (thus blowing your “scarce good” theory – it becomes much much less scarce if they are playing arenas every night of the week.

These are both the same effective issue, and ignores pretty much everything we’ve written (good work!). The evidence is quite clear, that in embracing your fans you INCREASE THE SIZE of your audience. So, you don’t necessarily have to raise ticket prices or perform more often.

Also, I’m not sure what’s wrong with performing more often? Most musicians I know would love it if there was enough demand to allow them to play more often.

And, uh, playing more often doesn’t get rid of scarcities. I’m not sure how you figure that.

Artists can create “innovative products”. Thats all well and good for inventors, but these people are MUSICIANS not INVENTORS

I didn’t say they had to invent anything. I’m not sure where you got that from. It appears to be another strawman.

I think the argument you’re *trying* to make is that since they’re musicians they shouldn’t have to worry about the business and marketing angle. And I agree. I’m not sure why you think that’s a point in your favor. It’s not. I’ve already explained that musicians who don’t want to be involved in the marketing and business side of things should find managers and record labels who handle that aspect — just as they do now.

So… what have you proven? So far, nothing but a lack of reading comprehension skills.

I want to repeat that, musicians create MUSIC. It’s important that you understnad that concept, and I think you do but you are CHEAP and want others to pay for your music for you.

As noted, I’ve addressed that repeatedly. As for the claim that I am cheap, I take offense at that. I spend an awful lot of money on music every year. I just ordered over $200 worth of music.

In a perfect world artists would have their music available for purchase on their own websites, not through some download service but on their own web site.

Define “perfect world”? I think that’s your problem. We’re not trying to define a perfect world. We’re explaining basic economics, and the REAL WORLD concerning what forces are impacting music.

If the artist choses to make the price of the purchase $0, that is their choice

Sure, in your theoretical perfect world. Out here in the real world, we recognize that price is set by the MARKET, not the seller alone.

Giving music away is great for consumers, bad for artists, and detrimental to the industry as a whole.

Tell that to the musicians making more money than ever doing that. I have seen no evidence that it is bad for artists or the industry (other than the industry of making plastic discs). So far, the evidence shows that it’s good for consumers, great for musicians and fantastic for the overall music industry.

Thanks for your time.