The inner-office debate over the value and potential cost of music continues to rage on. But in the course of discussion, one particular point seems to hold the key to the argument: when is a product a product?
The argument was made that music, as a non-physical product, has no inherent expense therefore it should merit no cost. Similarly, as the distribution is instantaneous and repeatable without loss of quality, distribution/sharing should be free as well. To prove the point, this quote was cited, “Piracy as done by teenagers, all my friends, pretty much everyone I know, is simply demand where appropriate supply doesn’t exist.”
I say that’s ridiculous. Piracy is simply the desire to not pay for something. Few pirates (Johnny Depp excluded) are heroes. The creation of music is as valid as the creation of any physical item. There are built in costs, best practices, and equipment.
Distribution of that music is reliant first upon the artist’s intent to put it out. Assuming he/she does, they’re in charge. It’s their product. I don’t tell Coca Cola where to sell their products, don’t tell me where or how to sell my songs. If I choose to give them away for free, great! But it’s my choice to make. I don’t need a pirate sitting in the harbor waiting to steal my stuff.
The laws of supply and demand are fairly universal — and I agree that the industry got greedy and complacent over the last bunch of years. But the solution is to empower the artist and reform the industry — not punish them or take control away.
