Comment by 7Figures2Commas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 7Figures2Commas | Hacker News Reader

7Figures2Commas

> Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.

Music in the form of a physical or digital copy of a recorded track is not rare. Album pricing is based on supply and demand. The latter has decreased significantly in the past decade. Short of pulling a Wu-Tang[1], it would be futile for artists to try to fight market forces.

If Swift really wants to discuss the value of music in the context of music as an important, rare art form, focusing on what consumers pay for physical and digital copies of recorded music makes about as much sense as valuing Monet's Water Lilies series based on how much Water Lilies posters sell for.

There are several rights associated with music and people have been buying and selling these rights for decades. Royalty Exchange[2] is an online marketplace for these transactions, and there are even focused funds[3] that essentially give investors the ability to treat these rights as an asset class.

Savvy artists focus first and foremost on ownership, not what consumers pay for a song or album.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-mi...

[2] http://www.royaltyexchange.com/

[3] http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/

I'm confused by your post. What makes these royalties valuable is that they are tied to the revenues generated by the sales of the same physical and digital copies of the music that you point out are technically not rare. But without the false scarcity created by copyright and the associated constellation of laws which surround it, these artifacts would not create revenue and then wouldn't the royalties also be worthless?

First, while it's true that the rights I refer to are generally valued based on the strength of the royalty streams, this does not mean that buyers and sellers value these rights in a strictly formulaic manner. As with any asset, there are a variety of factors that might result in buyers paying a premium. An investor with the ability to purchase rights associated with an Elvis Presley song, for instance, would probably pay substantially more for each dollar in royalties than they would for rights associated with a song by a less famous artist.

Second, and most importantly, not all royalties are tied to CD and digital music sales. These are mechanical royalties. There are also performance and synchronization royalties, which can be significant. It's is entirely possible, for instance, for a song that generates little in the way of mechanical royalties to generate eye-popping performance or synchronization royalties.

The guy who wrote the Cheers sitcom TV theme song never had to work again and lives off royalties.

I think the point that Swift fails to make is that music should be treated as a service, not as a good.

The point she does make, though, is that art IS rare, and I agree with her. Sure, there's lots of art. But the moment when you find someone who makes something that really means a lot to you for no particular reason, that's valuable in the new music era.

Interesting concept...

Especially since one of the changes of the network age is that music is no longer resellable like a CD/tape/record. That means it no longer has value once you buy it.

That's evidence that net music IS a service, like water or gas, just something you pipe into your house to get consumed and used. (You can't practically re-sell the water from your tap, nor your gas or electricity).

On the flip side though, it has to be more than that, because different glasses of water don't tell stories like songs do. Hmm Deep Thoughts.

I mean, I grew up pirating music and movies. I haven't for years now, because the vast majority of what I listen to is free mixtapes and CC movies. But I used to download discographies -- an artist's entire catalog. Or I would go and download every movie availiable from an artists IMDB page.

Art is a service. You might view an individual movie as a "Good" but I view a director's filmography as a living, breathing thing. If you want a technical term, you can consider an oeuvre a form of Marshall McLuhans's cool media.

In addition, if I'm paying for media, I want the rights to remix, reuse, and sell derivative work. Period. No DRM, no license restrictions. Just freedom.

Does something like the rights auctions your linked to exist for books?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com