[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Umm.. OK, so on the one hand you have the Mona Lisa. Pretty high on the scarcity front. On the other hand I can walk round the corner to a copy shop and pay a couple of quid for a pretty good colour reproduction. In the case of a photographic print, the quality can be extremely close, if not indistinguishable from the original. By your use of the term 'scarcity', the photocopy costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the value of the original. It has almost non-existent scarcity. How is that different, apart from in your head?

Here is a digital copy of the Mona Lisa. It has zero digital value, because of the nature of a digital product. Anything that is actually an 'object' as in exists physically in the real world, no matter if it is a reproduction or not, is subject to the laws of scarcity, and therefor has an inherent price (no matter if its a fraction of a penny). The digital is not, and it cannot be, no matter how many of your ludicrous, nonsensical rants you post here.

Regardless, scarcity is a piece of misdirection on your part. Scarcity doesn't dictate the value of creative works. Harry Potter books don't cost 5p because they've printed fifteen billion of them. Your £4 that you pay to see a movie largely comes down to the cost of filming it, not the cost of building the cinema - by your logic cinemas are scarce and expensive to build, so we should be paying a hundred times over for the privilege of going there.

Again, you're wrong, its not misdirection, just plain fact. Harry Potter doesn't cost 5p because the market (ie you) are willing to pay more. We're talking about 'inherent value' of an object. Scarcity (as I said earlier) is only one factor in that value. Supply and demand, basic economics. There is no supply and demand in the digital (unless you try and force it with DRM). And the money you pay to see a movie actually doesn't make the cinema that is showing that movie a bean, they make their money from the concessions outside before you even see the movie. The movie industry is a scam anyway, always has been, and that's a creative accountancy thing (some of the best selling movies of all time were officially losing money so the studios could fudge their tax returns).

One digital copy or a billion doesn't change the cost of production, nor does it change the value someone might assign to being entertained for however many hours it takes to read the book. We pay for the creative work, not the effort of cutting down a tree and scribbling on it.

No it does not change the cost of production (although it does lower it in many cases) but it does affect the perception of inherent value at the opposing end. The value proposition has completely changed. When you hold up a book in your hand it is a physical thing that you have been trained to perceive as having value beyond its actual cost of production (as in what the publishers pay to produce that object). Like all other 'products' you are instantly attuned in a capitalistic society to assign a monetary value.

Here's the Mona Lisa again, shared for anybody who wants to download it and make it into a wallpaper on their desktop. This painting only achieves value when it becomes 'something' in the physical world. Maybe if it was on a T-shirt or a mug, then you could assign some monetary value to it.

No emotion here - I work in this area and see the possibilities and problems that digital distribution introduces. I'm fairly pragmatic about it, but disappointed that digital copying is seen as a 'victimless crime', when it is having a very definite effect on the creative landscape.

If you work in this area and you're not 'shitting bricks' then I'm very worried for you. There's only so long that the old models of pay-for-product will last before the generation underneath us become the main force in consuming culture. A generation who share songs, movies and books now without a second thought. Who are increasingly attuned to a society and a social system that is 'free'. Ask any teenager do they pay for their email provider, and you'll get a blank stare. Culture is heading the same way.

Talking of which, I was reading this week about Lilly Allen's decision to quit music after producing two very well received albums. Her take is that she cannot make a living from music when the vast majority of her fans get digital copies rather than buying the album legitimately. She toured like crazy this summer, but it appears not enough. If we can ignore whether or not her music is any good, how do you feel about that?

Lily Allen is a coked-up, talentless, only got to where she is now because her famous Daddy pulled the strings, never-was. Recording artists have been screwed over on CD sales (like authors are on book sales) for the last 50 years and more. Everything that needs to be said about Lilly Allen, was said by Dan Bull (yes I bought his album after downloading this and another song completely freely)

I guess you could say there will be half a dozen new artists to fill her shoes, willing to release their first album for free just to get the exposure. What happens when they come to record their second or third album, but cannot justify doing something for free when it has become their career?

You don't seem to know much about the industries you're actually citing as examples. Most bands don't make it to a second or third album in the recording industry. They don't have the money to do so when the record companies have taken them for every single penny. Anybody outside that system is better off immediately, both creatively and in the potential of earnings.