6 ms·

I'll start believing in royalties when I start thinking it makes sense to pay an engineer for every car that crosses a bridge he designed for his life + 20 year

I'll start believing in royalties when I start thinking it makes sense to pay an engineer for every car that crosses a bridge he designed for his life + 20 years or to pay the architect 10 cents every time I open my front door. Pink Floyd can sob 'till the cows come home, but it's not going to make me believe that <del>he's</del> they're entitled to money for something <del>he's</del> they've already done.

mrleinad 13y ago
Pink Floyd is the big guy trying to stand out for the little ones who get trampled on every day, and have no voice whatsoever. I doubt David could care less about those royalties. He has his own band and already has made a lot of money from PF.
chasing 13y ago
"Pink Floyd" is a band, not a person. Your first sentence betrays a similar lack of understanding about how royalties work. And bridge-building. And doors.
- tomn 13y ago
  "The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's Pink?"
  - arbitrage 13y ago
    You must be lost; this isn't reddit. Do you have anything to actually contribute to the conversation, or did you just want to make sure everyone knows you heard a Pink Floyd song once?
    - qu4z-2 13y ago
      While I agree the comment didn't add much, I think your reply was perhaps also a touch rude. Then again, my comment isn't adding much either. And to tomn's credit, the lyric is a bit more relevant than just some random line: The root poster thought Pink Floyd was a person not a band. Apparently that's a common enough misapprehension that they mentioned it in a song... thence the quoted lyric.
    - mxxx 13y ago
      if you didn't get the reference you're obviously the one who's lost.
tzs 13y ago
How would you suggest pricing things whose value cannot be reasonably known at the time they are created? Royalties make sense for music, books, movies, and such because at the time they are produced we have no idea how much value they will provide. A song that is mildly popular and then disappears provides less value to the public than a song that becomes an enduring classic that is listened to for generations.
- jquery 13y ago
  You assume that this "value" must be captured by the original artist. Why do you assume this? Do you think without royalties we wouldn't have an abundance of good music? Nothing in the arts is cheaper to produce than music.
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    > Nothing in the arts is cheaper to produce than music. How about poetry? Performance art? Pantomime? Dance? Standup comedy? Etc.
    - jquery 13y ago
      Also very cheap to produce and compensated accordingly. Let's not get stuck comparing the value of one bag of pennies to another. Of course there's a range and some poetry will be cheaper to produce than some music and vice versa.
      - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
        I was reacting to your claim that nothing in the arts is cheaper to produce than music. That obviously is not true. As for what which arts have value, I think the costs have little to do with that. There are art projects that cost millions that I think are shit, and there are street musicians who can barely buy a deli hero who I think should get million dollar record contracts.
  - tzs 13y ago
    I'm assuming that in a fair system, people whose work produces more value should make more money than people whose work produces less value.
davmre 13y ago
Engineers and architects are paid up-front for their services. Musicians aren't. Do you have a suggestion for how they could be? It's true that musicians sort of used to be paid up-front, in the traditional label model where a record company gave a musician a big advance to make an album, and then pocketed most of the actual profits from the sales of that the album (akin to hiring an engineer to build a bridge, then collecting tolls on that bridge). But that's no longer the model for most up-and-coming independent artists, and in any case, that just shifts the royalty-collecting burden to the record companies, who still need to be able to recoup their initial advances. Another approach, which works well for bridge-building, is that the government just pays some engineers to build a bridge, then lets everyone use the bridge for free. This is like the really old school practice in which a wealthy prince commissions Beethoven to write a string quartet, and once complete that string quartet is then freely available for anyone to perform. As a model for music in the modern world, this would mean socializing the music production business, i.e., taxing everyone the price of a Spotify subscription and pumping that money into NEA grants for artists to record new music, which would then be free for everyone. On the bright side, this would eliminate all worries about piracy and chilling effects from anti-piracy enforcement. But there are also lots of drawbacks, e.g., in this model the decision as to what music should exist would be made, not by the market (as in the indie model), or a profit-oriented record company (as in the label model), but by government bureaucrats whose incentives come from the political process. Of course this could have some good effects (maybe they'd fund fewer Justin Biebers) but IMHO there are serious problems with a system in which an artist's viabilaity is contingent on their staying in the good graces of the government. Also, just so you know, Pink Floyd is a band, not a person.
- Glyptodon 13y ago
  Staying in the good graces of government was certainly not easy for Egil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson), though his artistry also saved his head. In any case, I don't think it's clear that government needs to be involved at all. While patronage might have been the realm of elites in the middle ages, in the modern era any group with enough members can easily become a patron with small cost to each for the sake of supporting any artist deemed worthy (obv. crowdfunding, etc.). It might take government to tunnel under the English channel, but it doesn't take government for a bunch of neighbors to get together and pave their lane. And supporting artists is much more the later than the former.
clarky07 13y ago
this is an interesting stance on a forum dominated by software developers. we make something once, copy it millions of times for free, and continue selling it as long as people are interested in buying it. It just happens that music generally has a longer lifespan than software. I for one really like making something of value for people and continuing to get paid for it as long as people get value out of it.
chaz 13y ago
This is just microeconomics: entertainment goods are poor substitutes for each other, and bands like Pink Floyd have monopolies on their own music. When you're in the mood for Pink Floyd, nothing else will do. Similarly, there are many TV shows, but only one Game of Thrones. Many movies, but only one The Godfather. Bridge engineers and architects are good economic substitutes for each other. You can put out an RFP and get competitive bids back.

mrleinad 13y ago

Pink Floyd is the big guy trying to stand out for the little ones who get trampled on every day, and have no voice whatsoever. I doubt David could care less about those royalties. He has his own band and already has made a lot of money from PF.

chasing 13y ago

"Pink Floyd" is a band, not a person. Your first sentence betrays a similar lack of understanding about how royalties work. And bridge-building. And doors.

tomn 13y ago
"The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's Pink?"
- arbitrage 13y ago
  You must be lost; this isn't reddit. Do you have anything to actually contribute to the conversation, or did you just want to make sure everyone knows you heard a Pink Floyd song once?
  - qu4z-2 13y ago
    While I agree the comment didn't add much, I think your reply was perhaps also a touch rude. Then again, my comment isn't adding much either. And to tomn's credit, the lyric is a bit more relevant than just some random line: The root poster thought Pink Floyd was a person not a band. Apparently that's a common enough misapprehension that they mentioned it in a song... thence the quoted lyric.
  - mxxx 13y ago
    if you didn't get the reference you're obviously the one who's lost.

tzs 13y ago

How would you suggest pricing things whose value cannot be reasonably known at the time they are created? Royalties make sense for music, books, movies, and such because at the time they are produced we have no idea how much value they will provide. A song that is mildly popular and then disappears provides less value to the public than a song that becomes an enduring classic that is listened to for generations.

jquery 13y ago
You assume that this "value" must be captured by the original artist. Why do you assume this? Do you think without royalties we wouldn't have an abundance of good music? Nothing in the arts is cheaper to produce than music.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > Nothing in the arts is cheaper to produce than music. How about poetry? Performance art? Pantomime? Dance? Standup comedy? Etc.
  - jquery 13y ago
    Also very cheap to produce and compensated accordingly. Let's not get stuck comparing the value of one bag of pennies to another. Of course there's a range and some poetry will be cheaper to produce than some music and vice versa.
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      I was reacting to your claim that nothing in the arts is cheaper to produce than music. That obviously is not true. As for what which arts have value, I think the costs have little to do with that. There are art projects that cost millions that I think are shit, and there are street musicians who can barely buy a deli hero who I think should get million dollar record contracts.
- tzs 13y ago
  I'm assuming that in a fair system, people whose work produces more value should make more money than people whose work produces less value.

davmre 13y ago

Engineers and architects are paid up-front for their services. Musicians aren't. Do you have a suggestion for how they could be? It's true that musicians sort of used to be paid up-front, in the traditional label model where a record company gave a musician a big advance to make an album, and then pocketed most of the actual profits from the sales of that the album (akin to hiring an engineer to build a bridge, then collecting tolls on that bridge). But that's no longer the model for most up-and-coming independent artists, and in any case, that just shifts the royalty-collecting burden to the record companies, who still need to be able to recoup their initial advances. Another approach, which works well for bridge-building, is that the government just pays some engineers to build a bridge, then lets everyone use the bridge for free. This is like the really old school practice in which a wealthy prince commissions Beethoven to write a string quartet, and once complete that string quartet is then freely available for anyone to perform. As a model for music in the modern world, this would mean socializing the music production business, i.e., taxing everyone the price of a Spotify subscription and pumping that money into NEA grants for artists to record new music, which would then be free for everyone. On the bright side, this would eliminate all worries about piracy and chilling effects from anti-piracy enforcement. But there are also lots of drawbacks, e.g., in this model the decision as to what music should exist would be made, not by the market (as in the indie model), or a profit-oriented record company (as in the label model), but by government bureaucrats whose incentives come from the political process. Of course this could have some good effects (maybe they'd fund fewer Justin Biebers) but IMHO there are serious problems with a system in which an artist's viabilaity is contingent on their staying in the good graces of the government. Also, just so you know, Pink Floyd is a band, not a person.

Glyptodon 13y ago
Staying in the good graces of government was certainly not easy for Egil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson), though his artistry also saved his head. In any case, I don't think it's clear that government needs to be involved at all. While patronage might have been the realm of elites in the middle ages, in the modern era any group with enough members can easily become a patron with small cost to each for the sake of supporting any artist deemed worthy (obv. crowdfunding, etc.). It might take government to tunnel under the English channel, but it doesn't take government for a bunch of neighbors to get together and pave their lane. And supporting artists is much more the later than the former.

clarky07 13y ago

this is an interesting stance on a forum dominated by software developers. we make something once, copy it millions of times for free, and continue selling it as long as people are interested in buying it. It just happens that music generally has a longer lifespan than software. I for one really like making something of value for people and continuing to get paid for it as long as people get value out of it.

chaz 13y ago

This is just microeconomics: entertainment goods are poor substitutes for each other, and bands like Pink Floyd have monopolies on their own music. When you're in the mood for Pink Floyd, nothing else will do. Similarly, there are many TV shows, but only one Game of Thrones. Many movies, but only one The Godfather. Bridge engineers and architects are good economic substitutes for each other. You can put out an RFP and get competitive bids back.