To be fair, from artists perspective if you take that $2,139.50 for the 11,000 songs mentioned, the total comes to $0.1945, but in reality, buying from the Apple Store for example, how much does each song cost? Meaning, from a consumers perspective, which is how David was writing in terms of Emily. Would we be talking about a dollar per song?
Let’s say so. If you use this more realistic price figure (on Emily’s behalf) that would be paid for the songs, a whole different monthly cost arise. Instead of monthly $17.82, we now have $91.66, or what was the estimated sum to be paid to the artist ($2,139.50) has now changed to $11,000 in total consumer cost, for Emily. That’s a difference of 1 to 5.
With this more actual price, the comparison is also more unrealistic. In terms of the Smart Phone, the High Speed Internet, the insurance, Metro card, or even with the approximate 1 Smart Phone + 1 full size iPod + 1 MacBook at $2,139.50, the montly cost suddenly appear equal or even less than that of the cost of the songs Emily possess.
Of course, I do understand that Davids monetary perspective was that of the artist alone. But considering that the argument was with a consumer that does not necessarily have the opportunity to pay directly to the artist, and therefore is forced to use the traditional commercial road, I thought that both perspectives ought to be shown.
Please do not take this as I condone stealing or ripping music, not at all, being a musician myself, I absolutely understand the dilemma. I think that my point really is that the middle men, as in so many other venues, are the main problem. A musician playing music, a music lover listening, and then the idiots in between, making money on what? Making an compressed file out of the master, copying it to the Apple Store, including a few servers? And for that, everyone involved in the process, gets five times that of the person who bought the instruments and made the song? Give me a break.
In answer to the “existential questions”, I can only continue with my opinions of course…
You cannot build a computer or create an Internet on your own, but once you have it, digital content is virtually already on your computer. Meaning, you are by all means required to buy the computer and the Internet connection, but applications to move files across the Internet are free or easy to create and widely available.
So, it’s not as if people “gladly” give their money to the corporate conglomerates, nor do people “willingly” pay for computers, iPods, Smart phones with data plans and high speed Internet (with the sole purpose of downloading music), they are simply required in order to get to the Internet content.
It is rather the corporations who have positioned themselves as controllers of the access to the mass content on the Internet. Again, they did and do not care about anything but the control of what people want. With such control, they have assured themselves of steady revenue.
Why do you think a Smart Phone is $80 per month? When an Internet connection is half of that, and virtually anything can be found on the Internet for free, even video calling on Skype or most IM apps, BUT calling or texting someone on a phone, is extra.
Why do you think Smart Phones are “locked” in the USA, but almost nowhere else on the planet? “Locked” means that they are tied to certain providers.
Why can I not buy a DVD/BluRay movie on one continent and play it on another? The one reason? To control to maximize revenue. Some of the movies are not released on more than one continent, so It’s not like there is a choice for those, except violating unlawfully.
So I think David’s hyperbole is a bit misguided there, because people do not think “as if”, the way he so sarcastically portraits.
Every penny that is in control and can be squeezed out of something will be. This is the reason why people do not care about the value of anything that is not required (by them) to be valued.
This is also a reason why Steinberg use the eLicenser.
It is really not the people that are doing the wrong, it is the commercial interests that are doing it wrong. The value system has lost its ability to value anything, in favor of making as much money as humanly possible, regardless of value. Supply and demand is no longer the bearing for the commercial enterprise (other than when they play it wrong and ends up loosing, and needs to cut costs). Nowadays it’s the ability to control the need and availability of goods that runs the money, the ability to create strategic and artificial “gaps”, etc. This control is in the hands of the mega corporations that over the years have positioned themselves there. “Fair trade” in business, is a thing of the past.
A continuation of this is the banking system, which tack on fees and all kinds of rip-offs added to prices and transactions. They have positioned themselves in the position of controlling virtually the only path that “money” can travel. When cash is long gone, every single being on the planet will be at the mercy of a single transactional system that has been in place since monetary transfers has been done, the bank system. Leaving us with absolutely no choice. Virtually and on computers, just like musical content for people like Emily. Understand that what she is doing, they will eventually do with your money and investments.
Realistically, this topic is not really about artists and their compensation, but really a much larger concern, about the continuation of our earthly system as we know it. The way things are currently going (yes, including the monetary rape of the musicians, and everyone else) we will end up fulfilling the belief of a rapidly approaching doomsday, or at least with a global systemic failure.
One can appeal to consumers to be ethical and moral, but in the end, it’s not them that is the problem. They are merely the symptom of a much larger disease.
Anyone that thinks that this is gibberish, really must not have the capacity to understand it.