3 ms·

Then don't use the $10 a month service and go pirate music by all means. That gives signals to the actors, which they will take into consideration when figuring

by aggftw 14y ago

Then don't use the $10 a month service and go pirate music by all means. That gives signals to the actors, which they will take into consideration when figuring out what their business model should look like. The fact that services like Spotify have caught on as of late are proof that many people like the business model. Let musicians see how much more money they make by delaying the release of their albums in these services. They will figure it out eventually, I hope. It's all about finding the distribution of that arbitrary "fair" price in order to maximize earnings.

chrischen 14y ago
Yes and what if this signal that consumers want to send–$10, $1, or $0.01–doesn't work for the musicians???? Musicians can send a signal too. They can stop producing content. Fewer young people will consider going into the arts because they don't want to be starving (this is already the case, actually). I'd love to pay only $1000 for a brand new car, but that doesn't work for car manufacturers. There's no reason a $10 a month service is necessarily sustainable just because that's what people want to pay. Heck, if consumers can demand what they want to pay they'd most likely just go with $0. Why can't they send that signal? It's convenient for the consumer to say $10 because they are comfortable with that. This amount is what labels can squeeze from consumers (because piracy has left them no options), but that doesn't mean it's the final and perfect solution. If music subscription services end up not being much better than piracy, then all it does is grant a false sense of entitlement to these people who might as well still be pirating.