I don’t think that argument follows through. For that argument to work, we would have to think of musicians as primarily music produces, but in actuality musicians = performers. There WAS a model before distributed music came big, and that’s what I assume would once again become the base of income. Yes, only a few people can play the big venues, but that’s because only a few people can attract enough people to listen. In this way, distributed music acts as advertising.

However in the end musicians would continue to make money in the same way that they attracted labels to produce their songs, by playing venues and gathering a fanbase.

I do think that DRM has to die, and the RIAA needs to back off. When the feeling of a consumer is that you will be prosecuted for ridiculous infringements no matter how honest you try to be, the incentive for being honest is removed. I pay for every piece of music I download, and yet they are still threatening to charge a monthly fee on my bill to pay for violators. Where’s my motivation to continue to pay? iTunes has shown that consumers are willing to pay for music when it’s easy to obtain. Now free it from the tyranny of DRM and the “pay for every install” when my husband and I would have been sharing a CD between us anyway, and I think things will work out just fine.

One of the central problems for Mr. Glazowksi’s argument is that it relies upon altruism to work. And there is no such thing as society-wide altrusim. Alternatives are government regulation (and the money required to effectively enforce/prosecute would kill the market faster than BitTorrent ever would, so that one’s not a good move) and social stigma. It’s too late for social stigma because nearly everyone with a computer has downloaded some piece of copyrighted material at some point. Most people right now are splitting the difference - download from iTunes to assuage guilt, download from BitTorrent so they can pay their mortgages.

Another big problem is that he’s thinking on a social scale. But economic decisions are made on a personal scale. I live in a condo with shared heat and water - at the end of each month, everybody in my condo building contributes equally to the price of those utilities. Not once have we all gotten together to decide to use less heat and water, and there are only maybe 20 of us; AND such a thing would be in our collective best interest (in contrast to downloading free music)! The community of people that listens to music is millions strong - the collusion required to make such a decision would be mind-bogglingly impossible.

The third problem is that his arguments assume long-term thinking on the part of consumers. But even companies do not truly think in the long term. In the long term we’re going to run out of gasoline, but I can basically guarantee we’re gong to deal with energy scarcity before we come up with a replacement. Similarly, the average guy downloading music isn’t thinking “I wonder what happens to the artist’s ability to make this music if I get it for free?” … he’s thinking, “sweet, now I don’t have to buy it on Amazon.”

Now economic arguments *are* always hypothetical - we understand economics about as well as we understand the weather. However, there is a clear mechanism here driving music prices down, and those market forces are powerful. That mechanism is simple: pay ~$1 per track, or pay $0 per track. Illegal downloads rarely have viruses, wait times to download are comparable to pay servers, there’s no real value added to downloading songs from a legitimate source, qualities are comparable … and thanks to the big labels, so is selection. You have to be *really* well-intentioned not to take advantage of that situation OR have an eye towards future sustainability on a social scale OR have a strong sense of community with fellow musicians/listeners - and so do 100 million other people. Sorry. It just won’t happen, no matter how much anyone wants it to.

A final caveat - I don’t think the market will drive the price to 0. I’m not sure what the mechanism will be that keeps it above 0, but I have a hard time believing that things are governed by only one dynamical force. But it is going WAY down, and those business models that do not adapt will go extinct. Capitalist forces are entirely Darwinian - there is no mechanism to support the notion of collective good espoused by eg. Communism or Christianity.

My issue with the frivolous lawsuits set forth by the RIAA is that 250 songs uploaded gets you sued for $225,000. If record companies are satisfied with pricing of their artists single tracks on ITunes for $.99 a piece, why is a single mother in a middle income suburb of Minneapolis being sued for $900 per song?

My problem isn’t with being charged for music. It’s the hypocrisy that the record companies behave with day in and day out. They don’t really seem to care that you’ve downloaded whatever medium it is that you desire; their issue seems to be with the person who shares it for download. You can’t have one without the other, but I’d think that if record companies really wanted to stop medium piracy they would target the downloaders of said medium.

On another note, since Napster shut down, I haven’t shared a single song, movie, music video, or tv show episode that I’ve downloaded, so I should be just fine.

1) the concept of a rational actor is a precise economic concept which you are missing the meaning of. when a person is shown two identical products at different prices they either prefer in cheaper one or they are stupid to a degree that endangers their wellbeing. its a fact. the moral/ethical layer can and does affect decision making (fair trade coffee, industry boycotts) but the impact is consistently negligible unless there is obvious and demonstrated law enforcement looming over the consumption decision. a few do-gooders don’t save multi-billion dollar industries.

2) customers don’t ‘agree’ on a pricing structure, instead the price is set, people buy or they don’t, and businesses often fold or become engaged in price wars.

3) the idea that stealing is somehow undesirable IS your personal ethical standard. if your conclusions were logical theft would be unknown in our world. the idea that one goes to jail for stealing is a commonly held fact that is imposed on people and the decisions they make.

4) artists in general are rarely compensated fairly, if at all, throughout history across the world. your arguments about incentive only defend profit hording leeches in the industry which is categorically the most unfair to its primary producers (recording artists).

5) another reason your incentive concern fails is that most professional musicians don’t make their living selling records, it is a very tiny subset of musicians which are album oriented recording artists. the price freefall is not catastrophic for music as a whole, only for artists who depend on the major label model for their primary income which is a minute, and usually less talented, portion of professional musicians. if you are terrified of the new Blink 182 album not coming out maybe you have a dog in this fight, but then you would have more severe problems to be concerned about.

i guess you’ll just continue going out of your way to pay more for things than you need to, and i’ll continue making records for no incentive (i actually lose money at it, but i can write some of it off).

i would be happy to give you free copies of the records i have made, but by your logic this is impossible because i could not haven made them due to lack of incentive. catch-22?

although both of our paths are quite insane (inexplicably counter to the expectations of a rational actor in an economic modeling based on cash rewards), it will play into the infinitely complex equation of the gradual unveiling of history, a history in which you will eventually be incorrect.

thanks for playing, i haven’t gotten in an essay war for a spell. fun fun fun.

I disagree with your “rational people” statement.

If people are rational, they will not consistently look for the lowest price (which, according to some views on the economics of the music sale and distribution subject, is bound for the “free” mark), but rather agree on a pricing structure that enables artists and acts they establish a liking for to continue to do what they do. Makes sense, no?

And I wouldn’t call these ethical standards. They’re thoroughly logical conclusions.

If people ceased to pay for music, the creative side of the industry (meaning the musicians, the roadies, the producers, etc, etc.) would cease to do what they do. Because of the lack of any incentives. (Apart from concert revenue, which I would argue, for the most part, come about after recordings are made and released via retail channels.)

Your argument insists people will choose to pay a higher price due to your personal ethical standards. This will never happen. If your last sentence above was a viable solution to the problem we would not have jails or police officers. Furthermore, applying ideals of “civil society” to individual behavior doesn’t make sense.

A more appropriate approach you might consider to defend your values is to predict the music industry will realign as labels being philanthropic efforts, non-profits aggressively soliciting donations to keep the lights on while giving the product to the world at little or no retail cost. This also fits the notion of civil society in that it can be invoked and sustained by a successful institution. However “stealing music” in the sense you refer to mostly results in lower profits at CD replication plants and the layoff of unethical, overpaid, and unnecessary music industry executives.

The fundamental economic truth you are railing against is that rational individuals want to get the most utility for their effort, ie value for dollar spent. Rational people look for the lowest price and without a negative consequence they will always choose free. I suppose some noble, morally straight individuals like yourself will take the high road (in fact i paid for both the radiohead and saul williams records to show my support for the model) but the vast majority will not, particularly those with little disposable income or significant debt (which is most of the USA and entire world).