4 ms·

I am pretty sure that many do choose "free"/pirated/whatever becaus it is simply more convenient to get and manage content this way. Consider all the hops you n

I am pretty sure that many do choose "free"/pirated/whatever becaus it is simply more convenient to get and manage content this way. Consider all the hops you need to jump buying physical DVD and torrenting the movie. Or think about this scenario: you here a song you like somewhere and you want to get it. Digital world: launch your Shazam/Sound hound, let it identify the song, press "buy". Physical world… I will let you to work out this one yourself. And you may end up buying 10 more songs you don't like just because they were on the same album. There is the reason why ITMS is #1 music seller in US. Alas, producers are stuck in their world of physical copies. They do have a problem there—in the digital world they are pretty much unneeded middlemen. Let's remember that if one got illegal copy of some piece this does not directly translates to lost sale — if there was no way to get it for free our hero could just as well decide "to the hell with it". However, illegal copies and copyrated material on youtube, etc. can sometimes work as an advertisement for an artist and mean more ticket sales for the next gig. So, unbeatable DRM would probably mean slightly more sales, but less revenue for the artists.

cschwarm 17y ago
Yes, convenience is a big plus for illegally downloaded music. But I believe, some sort of middleman will remain in the digital world. Their value proposition is reducing transaction costs -- the costs associated with finding content that's worth to be produced, promoting it, distributing it to a place near you, and managing all monetary transactions. Yes, distribution is a no-brainer in the digital world. All other points, however, remain valid. And as far as I know, concerts and tours are expenses for lesser known bands, not money makers. In general, planning a tour is a very risky business. Today, a band may recoup some of the expense by selling physical stuff (CDs or merchandising). In the digital world, only merchandising remains. On a side note, producers are currently struck in the world of physical copies because there's no reliable copyright enforcement method. Otherwise, they would have embraced it years ago. It's simply less expensive to make digital copies (and therefore generates higher profit if prices stay the same). Under the premise of the OP, buying music would be as convenient as getting a illegal copy, I'd say.

cschwarm 17y ago

Yes, convenience is a big plus for illegally downloaded music. But I believe, some sort of middleman will remain in the digital world. Their value proposition is reducing transaction costs -- the costs associated with finding content that's worth to be produced, promoting it, distributing it to a place near you, and managing all monetary transactions. Yes, distribution is a no-brainer in the digital world. All other points, however, remain valid. And as far as I know, concerts and tours are expenses for lesser known bands, not money makers. In general, planning a tour is a very risky business. Today, a band may recoup some of the expense by selling physical stuff (CDs or merchandising). In the digital world, only merchandising remains. On a side note, producers are currently struck in the world of physical copies because there's no reliable copyright enforcement method. Otherwise, they would have embraced it years ago. It's simply less expensive to make digital copies (and therefore generates higher profit if prices stay the same). Under the premise of the OP, buying music would be as convenient as getting a illegal copy, I'd say.