>> As I understand it, the actual physical production cost of
>Prince' new
>> 'Chaos & Disorder' album on CD is cents - like 15 - 30 cents.
>
>1) A compact disc is a *digital* form of reproduction, so you've
>just supported my point. I doubt the physical production costs of
>an audio tape, video tape, or LP are remotely comparable. And I
>know from first-hand experience editing print publications that
>the cost of paper & printing has almost tripled in the last
>decade.
>
(a) a CD was only one example I gave. With movies - completely non
digital, and _very_ technically difiicult tor reproduce and ship - the
actual physical reproduction cost is still trivial
(b) I fear youy are not correct anyway about cassettes or vinyl albums.
Yes, those are much more expensive to press than CDs, BUT -- when you
(used to) buy a vinyl LP, my point was still quite correct ... the vast
majority of whwt you are paying for is the lads in NPG's salary, the
caterers salarym, the audio engineers salary, and so on and so forth ...
actual printing is not that much.
(c) You are completely right about books of course .. that is the "most
actual physical cost" example.
>2) However, the means of digital reproduction are still, for the
>most part, centralized. The market is dominated by giants like
>Sony, for example, which controls large market shares of both
>reproduction equipment *and* the content--how's that for a
>vertical monopoly? Even wonder why you can get an audio tape
>recorder for $100 and a VCR for $200, but DAT (Digital Audio
>Tape) has been all but kept off the mass market, as have CD-
>recorders? Answer: because the ability of the average person to
>use digital recording media to perfectly copy information would
>cut into the giants' profits.
>
Dude, you sound like me -- got any other conspiracy theories? <:
>3) Now imagine this future: computers develop to the point where
>we have enough bandwidth, processor speed, RAM, and storage
>capacity to plug the stereo into the PC, capture Prince's new
>album, and make it available via the net. The computer hardware
>manufacturing industry has no vested interest in protecting
>Sony's copyright, so it's doubtful to me that they will keep
>powerful computing like that off the market (and I doubt they
>could anyway, since computing needs rise to meet the increases in
>computing ability).
>
>4) Now, after the initial investment in the equipment, how much
>does it cost to reproduce Prince's album?
Let me answer your question. So far, >>this year<< the people who own the
internet (all three companies - there's a non-monoploy situation!) have
spent money measured in TENS of BILLIONS of dollars on fiber optic line.
>One-quarter of a cent?
>One-eighth of a cent?
That is silly. It is like me saying - 'how much does it cost a cinema to
let me watch a movie?' and asnwering 'Well, the wear and tear on my chair
is probably 5 cents, so the answer is 5 cents!'
>
>The pay enourmous salaries because they control the market. If
>they can't control the market (i.e., if mass plagiarism is cheap,
>simple, efficient, and fast), then they're going to lose their
>market share.
>
impeccable logic.
>The media hardest hit will be anything that's currently in print-
>-text, photo, graphic design, etc. And the *vast* majority of our
>information still resides in print form.
>
there's one basic assumption you are making here, that everyone makes when
they make this discussion.
You are assuming people will RATHER read something on a digitial medium and
would RATHER NOT pay the preium for a physical copy.
That is an assumption. It may be correct, it may be totally wrong.
There is absolutely no way to predict the future.
We may be Spirit Beings with huge Meta computer systems floating in
Interdimensional Vortices of Golden Wind .. .and people may still actually
prefer to buy a physical copy, of whatever, even if it costs a LOT compared
to teh digital version.
If my previous paragraphi is correct, your conclusion is completely invalid ...
>> { And the cost of a huge internet-web-site -- say CNET's (50
>full time
>> staff) or HOTWIRED (How many Taylor?) or the IBM's Olympic site
>($10
>> million so far) is certainly no closer to zero. }
>> Have you considered this ?
>
>Have you considered that the market for websites is brand new?
>Maximum of what? Four years old? And it hasn't even approached
>being a mass market until this year.
>
Good point .. I was just wondering ..
>> the cost of minting CDs is "trivial in relation to the product
>cost, but
>> non-zero".
>
>And the cost of sending information over the wires is trivial in
>relation to the cost of minting CDs.
>
Are you SURE about that?
What you are stating is:
"the entire CD-printing industry, including plant and personnel, and
including every retail music store, personell, real estate and so on .."
.. is .. much bigger than ...
"the entire fiber optic and satellite industry, combined with Cisco and the
entire segment of the computer indsutry devted to making servers, etc .."
I just am not sure if you are correct there Greg.
>
>Nope, not even remotely. The threshold will come about when the
>means of cheap digital reproduction and distribution are in the
>hands of people with PCs, DAT decks, CD-recorders, and a high-
>bandwidth computer network connection. Still several decades off,
>IMO. (Which is why I still have a chance to make it big as a
>writer!)
>
You are saying the following:
For Greg to be a famous writer:
Society currently has to sustain:
* sundry paper makers, printers
* sundry distributors
* sundry retailers
In the future, society will have to sustain:
* the telecommunciations industry
* cisco & Sun
Your assertion, Greg, is that B is vastly less expensive than A.
is it?
(PS your point that "you personally only have to pay $30 a month under
Model B" sort of makes my point. Under the current model A, ou have to pay
_nothing_ per month . You just have to walk into an agent and convince her
to rep your book <: }
-------------------------
jp may tweb limited
tel 801 272-TWEB fax 801 272-1881
--------------------------------------------