Comment by beaudeal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by beaudeal | Hacker News Reader

The interview is a bit long (around 45 minutes) with some fluff (what are your favorite gadgets?) but Reznor clearly recognizes in what direction the music industry and online content are going, which I found very interesting. Here's a quick summary of some of the more interesting bits:

- Reznor explains that since music is essentially free due to downloads, he doesn't feel it's necessary to require payment.

- When they offered the option to pay, only 18% of people did so. But, offering limited edition physical products worked out well.

- His feeling is that it's more beneficial for a greater number people to hear his music, even if it's for free, because the result is more ticket sales / merchandise purchases.

- They're looking to build a platform for artists to distribute their music which will give power to the artists. They're still playing with potential business models that are fair for the artist and fan.

- NIN is developing an iPhone app to connect fans by location, and will hopefully create a "live blog" of concerts for those who can't physically be there.

- They're continuing to work on Year Zero with either a serial TV show or graphic novel, which will integrate the album and ARG [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(alternate_reality_ga... ] that they produced.

- He has had some interest in live-streaming concerts, and is pushing for venues to have an open-camera policy so that fans all over the world can enjoy the experience, even if they can't physically be there.

I'm not a NIN fan personally, but it's nice to see a prominent figure in the music industry with their head on straight.

Reznor is a great guy, but I hope there's a future where people who make awesome stuff can get paid based on that, not based on charity, limited editions, and tie-ins. We need a new economic model for goods with real production cost but no reproduction cost.

>We need a new economic model for goods with real production cost but no reproduction cost.

Not only do I think that is impossible but I'm not convinced that it is a good idea. Has any economist ever done any quantitative analysis when the marginal cost of (re)production is zero? I suspect that there are only obvious models that answer the question by saying that goods with production costs of zero should be priced at zero. In the short term there are all sorts of things you can do to maximize profits when the marginal cost is zero, but in the long run the price will fall to zero.

This wistful hope that recorded music will be worth anything is kind of like my wistful hope that a viable economic system will come along that doesn't have a nasty tendency to concentrate the wealth in the hands of those that already have the capital.

Is that future you hope for really better than the one where something with a marginal cost of zero is priced in the market as it should be? I strongly suspect that the total amount of music recorded over time will continue to increase even as the cost falls to zero. I'm not sure what is so great about being able to sell digital music anyways. The limited editions seem infinitely superior to me as a consumer and are a great way to add a little bit of scarcity to a good that isn't scarce.

Great summary. I watched it too and like you was impressed to see how articulate Reznor is. His answers were insightful and nuanced.

Came here to say the same thing, I was impressed on how articulate Renzor is throughout the interview. Plus, he clearly 'gets' the direction things are moving.

One thing I found interesting was that he straight out said 'you can't make money on iTunes'

Does anyone know why that is?

Trent said it in the context of incumbents and what he had to do to succeed in the music industry. With that context he was saying that the indie musician will have a hard time making any money on iTunes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com