Millionaire musicians and actors should become less common. They don't add the overall value that they used to, and their pay should reflect that.
I feel like you contradict your previous argument right here. If we should place all our trust in supply and demand why shouldn't there be millionaire musicians if people are willing to create them?
I didn't say they shouldn't exist. I said they should be less common. If you consistently put out quality product and millions of people want it to the point that they actually buy your albums, that's great.
I don't begrudge anyone their success if they've earned it. A lot of today's artists did earn it the old fashioned way, even if that includes being propped up by the industry.
What I was trying to get at was that just because "successful musician" means "millionaire" today, that doesn't mean it should necessarily stay that way.
When there is so much quality content that some artists make available very cheaply on streaming sites, it should be harder to be massively successful. That's simply because, if you're competing on a more level playing field, there are more opportunities to lose fairly.
he main culprit is piracy IMO. I know reddit loves to think that piracy doesn't do anything, but I really do believe that piracy becoming easier and easier for people to do themselves that music has been devalued.
And I'm not trying to take a holier than thou approach. I'm 25. I downloaded music illegally from the time I first discovered Napster all the way until I was about 20 and had a change of perspective.
My comment to you was not my first rant of the day. If you want to see my rant against copyright infringement, see this. I happen to agree with you.
I also happen to think that copyright infringement, for a significant number of infringers, is a symptom of the old system not dying quick enough.
I really think that when content is readily available to consumers, most of the time they will choose to legally access it - either via an on-demand subscription service or by purchasing it outright.
If they cannot get access via an existing subscription, many people will look for legal avenues to buy it. If the price is too high, people will refuse to pay it. Massive amounts of copyright infringement is, to me, an indicator that the price is out of step with what the market will bear.
Lots of people will still buy the album at the price, but I most customers are buying for one of two reasons - either they want to support the artist and are willing to pay a premium or they morally object to copyright infringement but still want the album and are, again, willing to pay a premium.
It's market segmentation at it's finest:
Another problem is the number of premiums a given customer is willing to pay. If you like an artist, you might be willing to pay $10-20 for an album. In today's world of easier alternatives, however, how many artists are you willing to do that for in a limited amount of time? Two per month? Three? Five?
I really think the solution to the problem is to make streaming sites the primary distribution method for new music. For people who want to pay to support artists they like, downloadable and physical albums can be made available for a price - but that price should be much lower than it is today to allow people to support many artists in a small way rather than a few artists in a big way. These premiums could come in tiers with "special features" like DVDs used to. The features can even be pretty stupid sometimes (again, like DVDs) because they're an excuse to pay a higher premium.
I think the streaming service(s) should offer tiers as well. The people who don't give a shit what they listen to could pay $5/mo and get bands trying to make a break, indie bands who are mostly trying to make a living on tour, etc. Big labels could release their back catalogues in a $10 plan (splitting the extra $5 among their usage in that tier). New releases from major artists could be $20.
Again, we're segmenting the market based on what people want to pay, while at the same time giving them avenues to get whatever they want with the option to pay a premium to support their favourite artists.
We just don't want to segment too much or else we'll have the same problem. I doubt there's much of a market to pay $75/mo for New/Indie ($5) and $15 each for Sony, Universal, Warner, etc. ($10 New, $5 Back Catalogue) and $5 each for smaller labels (or groups of smaller labels).
Sorry for this huge rant.
And sorry for mine as well, but thanks for having an actual debate. :)
tl;dr - Copyright infringement is a symptom caused by mismatching prices and market realities. The internet has enabled a commoditization of entertainment and, while there is a place for premium products, the market has changed and there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Adapt or die.