Warp escreveu:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   The music industry is really, really greedy.
> 
>>  From what I hear, the film industry is not much different...
> 
>   At least the film industry has more reason for their actions. After all,
> if you pour 100 million dollars into making one single movie, you have some
> good motives to protect your rights.
> 
>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?

well, for one there's the drugs dealers fueling the musicians, there's 
the hookers for their enjoyment during touring, hundreds of towels, 
5-star rooms in top hotels, all the dancers and performers and light 
technicians to make a few notes and many noises feel like a symphony 
etc.  It surely costs a lot.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:20:56 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   The music industry is really, really greedy.
> 
>>  From what I hear, the film industry is not much different...
> 
>   At least the film industry has more reason for their actions. After
>   all,
> if you pour 100 million dollars into making one single movie, you have
> some good motives to protect your rights.
> 
>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?

Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician 
plays.

But the MPAA doesn't invest in the creation of movies - much like the 
RIAA doesn't invest in the creation of music.  They just represent the 
people who do (ostensibly, arguably neither represents all artists, 
though they'd like to think so and act like they do).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The artists suffer directly from that 
> attitude, I know. I have been wondering if there is a more direct way to 
> support artist without paying a multiple of it to the record companies.

The only reason the record companies are there in the first place is 
because the distribution of the IP formerly involved copying into a 
physical format (hand-copied texts, piano rolls, vinyl, CDs).  They 
provided a service that was inherently necessary for the artist's goals 
to be realized, and charged a cut of the money for it.  Ditto for the 
store from which these physical copies were vended.

Distribution of IP now involves considerably less work than before.  A 
few mouse clicks and key presses, and it's done.  The record companies 
are less necessary than before, in a free market they must find another 
service to provide in order to survive.

A continuing theme throughout the lecture is how vested interests, when 
faced with a situation in which their current contribution was no longer 
wanted by the free market, sought to make the market less free.  Where 
they did not petition the legislatures to outlaw the new technology 
outright, they lobbied to require that a new service be packaged with 
the new technology, with the lobbyist's patron being granted a legal 
monopoly on providing that service.

He didn't make the point as directly as I would have liked, but it is 
pretty clear throughout that a free market, in spite of all the flaws 
that some claim to see in it, is the best means to reduce the costs and 
increase the availability and quality of consumer goods and services for 
the people in general.  Every economic system has, in comparison to 
others, winners and losers; but the free market, in the full scope of 
thing has the most winners and the fewest losers.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?

> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician 
> plays.

  Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 17:03:12 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
> 
>> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician
>> plays.
> 
>   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.

Think symphony orchestra.

But even if not, suppose the instruments a musician uses cost them a 
million dollars.  I don't think that offsets the argument that much, it's 
still a hell of an investment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:39:57 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I'm eagerly waiting for Piano Hero -- with "songs" by Chopin, Liszt,  
>> Beethoven and company.
>
> Bagpipe hero.
> Symphonic orchestra hero (more suited for the wii, I suppose).
> And, of course, pipe organ hero.

http://basicinstructions.net/?p=461



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 17:03:12 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
>>> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician
>>> plays.
>>   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.
> 
> Think symphony orchestra.

That's still half a million dollars per instrument. :-)

Now, the music *hall*, perhaps, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:06:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2009 17:03:12 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
>>>> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the
>>>> musician plays.
>>>   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.
>> 
>> Think symphony orchestra.
> 
> That's still half a million dollars per instrument. :-)

Certainly high-end professional instruments can run that much, of course 
we're talking something like Yo-Yo Ma's Stradavarius (or Pearlman's).

> Now, the music *hall*, perhaps, yes.

Well, that and/or the recording studio, equipment, etc.

My point to Warp was that it's not just a question of getting a bunch of 
guys together in their garage studio with a tape recorder or a computer 
to record their jam session.  Professional recording is big business.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>   How much does it cost to create one CD of music?
> 
>> Instruments and training are expensive, depending on what the musician 
>> plays.
> 
>   Worth 100 million dollars? I don't think so.

Instruments, kitting out a studio, staffing it with talented 
professionals, paying their wages while they edit the music down, mix 
it, work with the artist(s) to make it sound right. The guys who send 
the mixdown to the fab where the CDs get pressed. The graphic artists 
who design the cover. The PR people who promote the thing once it's on 
the shelves.

The actual CD might cost peanuts to press, but getting to the point 
where you have a professional-grade recording to make a CD out of isn't 
cheap. (Have you *seen* how much money they want for high-quality 
microphones?!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> Distribution of IP now involves considerably less work than before.  A 
> few mouse clicks and key presses, and it's done.  The record companies 
> are less necessary than before, in a free market they must find another 
> service to provide in order to survive.

Web hosting?

You *can* host a website from a laptop in your house, connected to the 
Internet via ADSL. I've done it. But it works *really* badly...

> A continuing theme throughout the lecture is how vested interests, when 
> faced with a situation in which their current contribution was no longer 
> wanted by the free market, sought to make the market less free.  Where 
> they did not petition the legislatures to outlaw the new technology 
> outright, they lobbied to require that a new service be packaged with 
> the new technology, with the lobbyist's patron being granted a legal 
> monopoly on providing that service.
> 
> He didn't make the point as directly as I would have liked, but it is 
> pretty clear throughout that a free market, in spite of all the flaws 
> that some claim to see in it, is the best means to reduce the costs and 
> increase the availability and quality of consumer goods and services for 
> the people in general.  Every economic system has, in comparison to 
> others, winners and losers; but the free market, in the full scope of 
> thing has the most winners and the fewest losers.

Yeah, pretty much.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message