RE: No cost to viewer ≠ free

I agree.

Though I think there’s a substantial difference between movies and music when it comes to piracy.

Decent video is still pretty expensive to produce — there are some really good innovators out there showing how to do it much less expensively, but it’s still not cheap. Somebody has to pay for that, and it’s only fair that the consumer chips in.

Music, on the other hand, costs nearly nothing to produce. There’s nobody involved who adds any notable value beyond what the artist did in performing the piece. A professional quality recording studio can be put together for a few thousand dollars, and Internet distribution is essentially free.

It seems to me that the barriers to creating quality music are so low that only the lazy or untalented wouldn’t get by them purely for the love of art. So I’ve got very little sympathy for the RIAA — they’re parasites from an outdated distribution model.

Movies might get there — but I’d say it’s at least another 20 years before they will. Until then, I think they deserve to recoup their costs.

Well, Except for porn. That’s already nearly free to produce. Direct to video with any willing actor — no real costs to recoup there.

View Full Discussion Arrow_up

	Guilty - I devote too much attention off the road.
	Yeah - but I can do it without looking.
	Sure - no different than eating, make-up or playing with stereo.
	No - but I do still talk on the cell.
	No - I resist all distractions.
	When did "text" become a verb?

Most Nerd-Its | Nerd Trends | Last Ten

What is OmniNerd?

Voting Booth

Do you text while driving?

comment by scottb on 02 January 2009