a few years ago i bought tix to see the CSO and when my wife found out the cost, she staggered and said “you could have bought 12 cd’s with that money.” but after going to the performance we were both thrilled and easily laughed off the idea of using the money for cd’s over the performance.

arrington said nothing that diminishes the intrinsic value of music, imho…he just seemed to prove he doesn’t want to talk about it.

You are absolutely right that the decreasing marginal cost of production does not mean diminished pricing rights of the artists. Ideally, the near-zero maginal costs of production and distribution should increase artists’ options in how to market their music.

No longer will bands be required to go through the brick and mortar music industry. Portals like emusic essentially allow music to be delivered directly to the consumer. How long will it be before a digital only label appears (I’m not necessarily talking about netlables here, either). CDs are a dying format, so eventually somebody will be all digital.

What I find ironic about the whole dust up is that the major labels have victimized themselves. The marketing of ‘hits’ as opposed to long-standing albums which merit repeated listening over time has fostered the notion that music itself is disposible (indeed, most of today’s pop is utterly disposable). For consumers in their teens and early twenties, downloading music is seen as harmless in part due to the ephemeral nature of the music itself. The RIAA can point to the number of times a Gwen Stefani hit has been shared – but how many people are listening to that song 9-12 months down the road.

The major labels spent a long time feeding at the through of pop. Extensive and aggressive marketing rolled songs in and out of popularity – at the obvious expense of permanence. I’m not saying this makes it right, but it is a factor.

What is the motivation for a consumer to buy a material good when the content therein is of only temporary interest. I don’t spend anytime in the P2P ecosystem, but I’m guessing that the number of downloads is disproportionately tilted toward pop.

How many people go online to steal a Miles Davis album, or to find one track from the latest Explosions In The Sky release? Probably very few. If you are interested in these artists, you are likely looking for the whole enchilada and you probably want to obtain it legally.

So again, not to say this makes it right – but I do think that what is being shared on P2P is probably a reflection of the perceived permanence of the content in question.

But very truthfully, Pandora’s Box has been opened here and it’ll never, ever be shut again. The solution Bob Lefsetz is always blabbing about — monetizing p2p at the ISP level — is starting to get some traction (I was reading somewhere that some Chinese universities are trying it, with some American institutions to follow). Track every download. Distribute the monies in an ASCAP/BMI/SESAC model. It’ll be the most accurate accounting the music business has ever seen and the artists will (finally) get paid. More music for more people, artists getting paid what they’re owed…it’s a winning proposition for everyone.

I think Arrington was talking about the cost of re-producing music and not the production costs for creating it. Once a song is recorded, perfect digital copies can be made for free, regardless of how much effort was put into creating that first copy. And with the technology available to bands today, production costs are going down too.

It’s bias, contradicting, and based on very little technical understanding of the actual honest to God music industry, from the point of view of a pretentious music nerd (me).
Having said that, give it a read. Worth at least a laugh.