Rigo 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23) comment rss

  • On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing

    Rigo ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I guess he actually ment "Commodity"

    The forum ate my comment, but you have it exactly backwards, anon.

  • On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing

    Rigo ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I guess he actually ment "Commodity"

    >>You buy the song, you DO NOT buy the rights to that song. That is the simple difference you people seem to have so much trouble with.

  • On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing

    Rigo ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2012 @ 09:08am

    Re: Re: I guess he actually ment "Commodity"

    People who understand and respect copyrights should be getting Bas's point right away.

    When you buy, for example, a CD, you are not buying a collection of songs. You never own the songs. Whoever holds the copyrights for those songs is the one who owns the songs. So when you by a CD you're not buying songs - you're buying the packaging (the CD). You're willing to buy the packaging because it allows you to listen to songs that you like, but you're buying the package NOT the songs.

    And then the implication of that point...

    Many of you are pointing out that the package really isn't something you value. It's sort of something you put up with to get to the songs. Nobody wants to buy and listen to a blank CD. What you value is the music. Bas is not disagreeing with that.

    What's he's trying to say, I think, is that a package that you pay for that just serves to deliver music is an inferior value to a package that you not only don't pay for, but that is also available on demand with no fuss. That's what competing with free means, and there's no distribution model for selling copies of music (the package) that can compete with that from a customer value standpoint.

    However, you can use music to make other things people WANT to buy more valuable, and you won't have to worry about non-commercial infringement because the package people are buying is something they actually want, with value added by music they want, too. That's how an artist can make money off of their music without having to compete with free.

    I think a lot of you guys are agreeing with his point but balking at the implication.