[seriously serious sirius XM radio] IP reform thread

[KrazyHorse]

I honestly don't get where the **** you came up with that idea, Kuci.

If the Beatles are offering free, no ad music listens it doesn't mean that the Stones can't charge/have ads for their listens

[KrazyHorse]

And insofar as the Beatles' freeness pulls away appropriable value from the Stones' music it's also true that the Beatles' existence pulls away marginal utility from the Stones' music.

I really don't understand where you came up with your BAM....

[Kuciwalker]

Seriously, dude: think of it this way. blah blah stuff

Dude, I get the economics. Since I've said a couple times now "the problem is you are assuming you can make people pay", you should realize that my problem isn't not understanding your economics.

[Kuciwalker]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????

Errr...the last I checked the music industry was still making money.

The only thing that keeps people paying for music at all is [essentially baseless] fear of prosecution and quickly disappearing social mores/computer illiteracy.

[KrazyHorse]

Dude, I get the economics. Since I've said a couple times now "the problem is you are assuming you can make people pay", you should realize that my problem isn't not understanding your economics.

So according to you, you don't think you can even get people to listen to ads??????

That's ridiculous, man. Like I said: the music business still makes money.

[KrazyHorse]

The only thing that keeps people paying for music at all is [essentially baseless] fear of prosecution and quickly disappearing social mores/computer illiteracy.

Yet I listen to ad-supported Pandora. And ad-supported regular radio. Your theory that absolutely nobody will ever pay anything for music is ridiculous....

[KrazyHorse]

****, my wife still buys CDs occasionally. And it has nothing to do with morality or fear of prosecution. 10 bucks on a CD isn't really much to think about when you have a job, dude.

[Kuciwalker]

There are plenty of contexts where you can get people to listen to ads - anywhere it's still technically feasible to prevent piracy. And of course it still makes money - there's still a large demographic of people unable/unwilling to pirate music. This demographic is shrinking, and there is no particularly good reason to tie the amount of music funding to its size.

[Kuciwalker]

****, my wife still buys CDs occasionally. And it has nothing to do with morality or fear of prosecution. 10 bucks on a CD isn't really much to think about when you have a job, dude.

I don't pirate music. I actually use the closest private analogue to the system I'm proposing - the Zune Pass. Monthly fee, unlimited access to the whole catalog of music.

[Kuciwalker]

Incidentally, this system would work even better for television, because there's a substantial time cost to watching a show.

[Kuciwalker]

The utterly ridiculous thing is that because of the way copyright applies to songs currently, the Zune Pass has to use DRM to remove access to your music if you stop paying. If it were a government-mandated system they could give me ****ing MP3s.

[KrazyHorse]

It works well FOR MUSIC AND TV WHICH IS RUN OF THE MILL/FUNGIBLE.

It does NOT work well for OTHER STUFF.

HBO's entire business model puts the lie to your claims.

[KrazyHorse]

The utterly ridiculous thing is that because of the way copyright applies to songs currently, the Zune Pass has to use DRM to remove access to your music if you stop paying. If it were a government-mandated system they could give me ****ing MP3s.

I have no idea what this has to do with valuing the stuff. Either way, most would be put in the public domain.

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhow, here's a robust two tier solution, in case you're still stuck on this ridiculous claim that nobody can ever extract value out of music:

First step is the auction system we were talking about. As before, most of the time the government purchases the music and puts it into the public vault. Since the government owns the rights, no need to keep track of how many times each song is downloaded except for market research purposes. In case the originator chooses not to accept the gov't offer OR in case it's one of the few times that the gov't actually assigns the rights to one of the bidders, the owner has the right to license to the public vault on a fixed fee-per listen/view basis. If the owner believes that his property is one of those special premium cases then he is free to refuse to do this, and to attempt to extract excess value through whatever means he can think of.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyhow, here's a robust two tier solution, in case you're still stuck on this ridiculous claim that nobody can ever extract value out of music:

First step is the auction system we were talking about. As before, most of the time the government purchases the music and puts it into the public vault. Since the government owns the rights, no need to keep track of how many times each song is downloaded except for market research purposes. In case the originator chooses not to accept the gov't offer OR in case it's one of the few times that the gov't actually assigns the rights to one of the bidders, the owner has the right to license to the public vault on a fixed fee-per listen/view basis. If the owner believes that his property is one of those special premium cases then he is free to refuse to do this, and to attempt to extract excess value through whatever means he can think of.

If most music is available conveniently and legally at zero cost, there will be basically no market for music at nonzero cost and the prices will be highly depressed. Because, as you observed, music is fungible.