In a series of student blog posts a couple weeks ago, the resounding consensus was that streaming music should be free for the consumer because, well, it’s convenient for the consumer.
As a rebuttal, here is a blog post that outlines the range of costs borne by a photographer that are wrapped up in the process of making a single photograph ($6,612 by his reckoning): http://petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/ The author also dispels with the weak argument of being paid in “exposure” or “visibility,” which doesn’t pay the bills and would be considered an unacceptable or even insulting form of payment in any other non-artistic field. Similar hidden costs exist in the fields of music, painting, dance, film, poetry, or literature.
As consumers, we’re willing to absorb lots of indirect costs in the goods we consume: staffing to stock shelves in a store (salaries, taxes, and benefits for those employees, too), electricity to light the store, packaging costs, shipping costs, marketing and research costs to develop the product, executives’ salaries at the various companies involved in making a product available to us — all of these expenses are paid for by consumers when they purchase goods. However, these same background costs are not something we’re willing to pay for with art — it seems that our economic system doesn’t value a painting, a photograph, or a song (and the cost of artists’ supplies, education, or creative time) in the same way it does a box of cereal at the grocery store — hence we argue that music streamed directly to our electronic devices of choice should be free.
-Dr. J.
P.S., this isn’t a proper Online Class Discussion, just an interesting tidbit of information I came across that seemed germane to current topics of conversation elsewhere on the website. Food for thought!
Dr. Jones' Music Classes 
i agree that we as consumers don’t value art whether it be music or painting the way we do products at the grocery store. i think that is why artist initiatives like the streaming service Tidal and music producer Swizz Beatz No Commission Art Fair held in the Bronx a couple of weeks ago is so important. So the artist can properly benefit for their hard work and talent.
LikeLike
It’s interesting since we as a consumer doesn’t think about the added expense of indirect cost such as the travel, electricity, and equipment cost that will increase the price to make a specific goods. This background cost will cause the consumer to become disinterest in arts due to the amount of money needed to create this arts, the streaming of music to our electronic device is related to this since listening to music can be consider a past time instead of an hobby that we put money into.
LikeLike
i agree with it, electronic devices of choice should be free. if its free, there will more people to download music and other stuff.
LikeLike
I agree with that cause more free you have electronic I think a person would value an artist music more enough to buy it and give a feedback so artist can profit too.but because of the expense of devices people decide to rather be able to download a music than buy it.a good example of this is iPhones where you can get music free you have to buy from iTunes.if not you have to download a app to listen to music but it’s really not yours
LikeLike
One way we dont value art nowadays is specifically with music. For example people especially younger people will download music from the internet which is actually illegal. This doesnt help out the artist who make the music.
LikeLike
I agree with you because downloading a music from the internet be so less costly now.So people choose to value a music in a way just for their benefits of listening and enjoying it while an artist you would you to buy it so he or she can profit from it or even to get a feedback.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually the cost of art has always been controversial because people don’t take arts as a serious job they take it .ore as an entertainment. They forget the fact that artists are people who need to earn a living too to support their families. I mean for instance nobody will work without a paycheck and also I think technology affects also the artist pocket because people are able to download music without paying for it. I think people should consider the artist as a person with a job who needs to have its rights to own music, books, and movies is part of their legacy.
LikeLike
Actually the cost of art has always been controversial because people don’t take arts as a serious job they take it .ore as an entertainment. They forget the fact that artists are people who need to earn a living too to support their families. I mean for instance nobody will work without a paycheck and also I think technology affects also the artist pocket because people are able to download music without paying for it. I think people should consider the artist as a person with a job who needs to have its rights to own music, books, and movies is part of their legacy.
ARTISTS DESERVE A CHANCE TOO.
LikeLike