3 ms·

" If someone downloads music for free and uses the money saved to go to a concert, they are consuming more in terms of other people's labor for the same price."

" If someone downloads music for free and uses the money saved to go to a concert, they are consuming more in terms of other people's labor for the same price." Though due to the higher distribution of the content (since its at no cost to the consumer), more people are discovering it, and more people are going to the concerts. Lower margins, higher volume.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago
Not if entertainment budgets are constant, which is the assumption in that study. Constant entertainment budgets means there is no room for volume growth in terms of money, unless you are referring to developing countries where it's probably different.
- niels_olson 15y ago
  Even in a flat market, of course there is room for volume growth for the individual proprietor, in this case, the artist. But a flat market requires more competitive rules to avoid monopolistic tendencies. In the Swiss regime, the distribution of sales will smear out over more small artists and fewer giants. The long tail gets thicker. My brother is an artist. I'm totally fine with that scenario.
- learc83 15y ago
  I assume entertainment budgets are a constant percentage of total discretionary spending. So they go up as income increases with economic growth.
  - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
    True, but real incomes have been stagnant in the US and many other developed countries for over a decade.
- kapitalx 15y ago
  Even if the money spent is constant, the money is moving from the distribution cost (marketing, CDs, etc) to the artist (concerts) in the case I described above.
  - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
    Concerts need to be marketed as well and it takes a lot of time to perform on stage (I used to help with that and have done some myself). So if you work out compensation per hour, I'm not sure if concerts are really a better deal for artists. My guess is that it is a better deal only for the long tail of less well known artists who make almost nothing from media distribution anyway.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

Not if entertainment budgets are constant, which is the assumption in that study. Constant entertainment budgets means there is no room for volume growth in terms of money, unless you are referring to developing countries where it's probably different.

niels_olson 15y ago
Even in a flat market, of course there is room for volume growth for the individual proprietor, in this case, the artist. But a flat market requires more competitive rules to avoid monopolistic tendencies. In the Swiss regime, the distribution of sales will smear out over more small artists and fewer giants. The long tail gets thicker. My brother is an artist. I'm totally fine with that scenario.
learc83 15y ago
I assume entertainment budgets are a constant percentage of total discretionary spending. So they go up as income increases with economic growth.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  True, but real incomes have been stagnant in the US and many other developed countries for over a decade.
kapitalx 15y ago
Even if the money spent is constant, the money is moving from the distribution cost (marketing, CDs, etc) to the artist (concerts) in the case I described above.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  Concerts need to be marketed as well and it takes a lot of time to perform on stage (I used to help with that and have done some myself). So if you work out compensation per hour, I'm not sure if concerts are really a better deal for artists. My guess is that it is a better deal only for the long tail of less well known artists who make almost nothing from media distribution anyway.