Originally Posted By: HearToLearn
Something in my chuckles at the idea of producing a single recording and having someone make an mp3 of it. I don't know that it would lessen it at all; as you would still own the original. Thoughts?

His main point is that the value of the item is proportional to the cost of creating the item. While there are fixed costs in creating a recording (paying the artist, physical plant, distribution mechanism), once you're past a certain threshold, the cost per item is exceedingly small.

Taylor Swift argues that "art is rare", which itself is debatable. But digital music is certainly not scarce, nor is Taylor Swift's music. There's some fuzziness in the language, because there's a difference between owning art, and having a copy of art.

Full ownership of an object of art includes duplication rights, which is where much of the value of art comes from for the owner. As consumers, we don't actually "own" much of the art we purchase, because even if we had perfect duplication mechanisms, we have limited duplication rights.

Scarcity can be artificially created - the diamond market is a good example. Creating a one-off vinyl record is another excellent example. The value comes from the fact that what you have isn't what someone else has. Even if you own the physical vinyl, you don't have the rights to duplicate and release the recording.

But if you chose to duplicate it and make it widely available, then obviously the valuation of that object of art would decrease, because it would no longer be unique.

So, no - it would most certainly lessen the value.

-- David Cuny
My virtual singer development blog

Vocal control, you say. Never heard of it. Is that some kind of ProTools thing?