Originally Posted By: dcuny

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.


I am very clear on all that you have said.

I think however, you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

Liken it to owning THE Mona Lisa. Although it has been duplicated many, many times to be displayed at museums over the years. It has also been "copied" in photographs to be displayed in signage, magazines and text-books. I really don't think any of that has lessened the value of the original; now at over $650 million. I think, if anything, because of the duplication and copies, it increased the value of the original. That is all I was saying.

And while the consumer may not own the rights, releasing mp3 versions of a song may create demand for the 1 original. Much like owning THE original of an Elvis song. Distribution made people aware of the song. But there is really only one 1st. That would drive up the value of the 1st one.

Again, I do understand what they are doing and the points you are making. Just offering some food for thought.

Again, I may be 100% wrong on that. All good if I am. Cool share. Thanks for that. I'm moving on.

Chad (Hope that makes it easier)

TEMPO TANTRUM: What a lead singer has when they can't stay in time.