Navneet Alang's editorial response at Techi is equally interesting. He's basically saying that there has been a cultural shift for people to expect their media to be free, so the industry has to adapt to a model based on selling stuff for nothing. Wait, what?
Clearly, there is a gulf between these two positions.
Everyone likes to talk about scarcity as the core issue because we still think of music, books and movies as a physical asset. It isn't. It is about utility. It is about what you get out of experiencing that media. If you listen to a song on an iPod while you're exercising or in your car, you're using it. That is the value. It doesn't matter if you encoded a CD for a file, or downloaded it for free, or if there are a billion other copies of the song out there. The fact that you've chosen to experience it indicates there is some inherent value.
Clearly, musicians are not making a living selling recorded music, as illustrated at information is beautiful. Here is another source. If you're Lady Gaga, you earned $167 from spotify for a million streams. Woo?
Navneet is a realist, and that is really the point he's trying to make. But he doesn't have any answers beyond the 'artists should make money playing live' thing that everyone constantly spouts. So, I'm curious. How is that working out for you?
If you're a musician that plays mostly (51% or more) original music live, please take part in this poll, and let us know the extent of your success for the whole of last year. You just did your 2009 taxes, right?
