Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

marker.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 245 posts

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#221

Post by conistonwater »

erpellan wrote: post #206
speedplane wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I invest it’s usually because I think “I like this dividend yield.” That's a pretty sophomoric way to look at investing. Many companies provide no dividends. Many give large dividends, but their stock value decreases. Obviously, when considering an investment, one considers both the dividends and potential growth of the underlying asset together.

Boring. The word is boring. Boring companies whose stock prices do nothing for 30 years but gently drift up and down with the market (or not), steadily yielding 5% dividends year after year. Usually they sell things like toilet paper, soap, electricity or other boring everyday things. When it comes to long term investing, boring is good.

This analysis is definitely wrong, it's discussed in textbooks too. You need to seriously, properly consider the risk of the investment, and if your model of the stock price is that it gently drifts with the market while yielding 5%, then that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#222

Post by ryacko »

netcan wrote: post #125
opportune wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very large number of early economists railed on rentiership (Adam Smith, Herny George, of course Marx). With regard to intellectual property, "ownership" is effectively monopoly because nobody else has the right to produce the good. There might be "inferior" or replacements goods with pop music, but maybe not even that when it comes to things like patents. However I disagree with your assertion that wealth is incom…

There are all sorts of practical exceptions, but it's still all backed by income generating wealth. That $5mm under your mattress is backed by bonds, income yielding bonds. That's why it's worth $5mm. If the country or bank that issues those bonds were defunct, the money would be worthless because the bonds would no longer be income generating. You could say that gold is nonproductive wealth. Adam Smith sorta argued…

No, the millions is not backed by bonds. It is a complex topic, but Brazil stopped their inflation by issuing a new currency and implementing price controls.

Much of economics depends on expectation, there is nothing inherently logical about any of it.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#223

Post by lucian1900 »

Iv wrote: post #220

Just a thought: If that is really what it would cost, then for 0.1% of the cost of the Iraq war, we could have had free culture, unencumbered by copyrights. I guess for 1%, the whole century's music production released in the public domain? Surely, it would have made more for everyone's life comfort than the operation Iraq Freedom did?

Indeed.

Although doing nothing at all would also be much better than invading a country and causing the deaths of more than a million people.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#224

Post by lonelappde »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #211
peteretep wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see a coin on a street aggressively patrolled by hundreds of people whose fulltime job is searching for dropped coins, you’re better off assuming it’s not a coin

Exactly. No point in even trying anything, if it's a good idea someone has already done it.

It's delusional you think you are the best person in the area at something you haven't put any effort into. Especially when the area is the whole world economy.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#225

Post by lonelappde »

speedplane wrote: post #201
wiseleo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the concept. I believe the value of back catalogs will only increase. As they increasingly corner the market, there should be a corresponding value increase in stock. What's not to like?

> I like the concept. I believe the value of back catalogs will only increase. ... What's not to like? Termination rights. In the 1970s, a new copyright bill was enacted that said that 35 years after the creation of a work, the ownership of that work automatically reverts back to the original creator. The idea behind the proposal was to give artists control of their works later in their career, when they may no longe…

Are you sure Lady Gaga and other corporate pop stars own the copyright to songs they sing? I'd expect these huge team projects to have corporate copyright.

https://blog.reverbnation.com/2018/05/09/music-law-101-owns-...

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#226

Post by lonelappde »

sjwright wrote: post #210
bsder wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a couple of BIG qualifications on your comments. 1) Vulfpeck slid through the YouTube music window about 2010-2012 that has since closed (that also produced Beiber, Jepsen, Psy with "Gangnam Style" etc.). 2) Vulfpeck were the backing musicians for Darren Criss who was very much a product of the standard system. 3) They are probably the antithesis that making new music is easier . They save a LOT of money beca…

I only mention Vulfpeck because they're at the pinnacle of their genre, not because they're the threshold. There's plenty of opportunity for anyone. Look at akageorge. (If you can—previously known as George Barnett, he seems to have reset his identity and thrown away much of his earlier material.) He's a self-evidently brilliant musician who can write and perform every part of a radio-ready hit. To the extent anyone…

That guy is talented, but those songs aren't radio-ready hits. In large part because the music/recording is nowhere near the major part of what makes a radio ready hit. Radio hits are the result of advertising and marketing, not music creation and production.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#227

Post by CathedralBorrow »

peteretep wrote: post #213
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. No point in even trying anything, if it's a good idea someone has already done it.

It’s foolish to assume supernormal returns on investment in a highly competitive market without either innovation or insight, yes.

Assume supernormal returns? Who did you mean to reply to? If it was me, why are you creating words out of thin air and placing them in my mouth?

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#228

Post by perceptronas »

tehjoker wrote: post #186

Concentration naturally builds in competitive markets. As each competitor is slain, you get the stuff they owned and add to your power. Nothing stops it except pressure from below. Allowing one man to own huge swaths of our cultural heritage is absolutely mind boggling insane, like a feudal king dictating what culture the peasants are allowed to have.

Its not a physical object. Songs are not going to be locked in some room and taken from society. Its just investment from his side and that seems totally OK in my book

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#229

Post by chx »

HenryBemis wrote: post #192
chx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anything after 7nth son is junk imho those are fighting words, my friend. Fear of the Dark and Paschendale are just two examples that came after Seventh Son and are rightly played often by the band at their concerts and immensely popular.

heh, talking about dogma (I just did), and my favourite IM singer is Paul, NOT Bruce. Although Bruce has a better/richer voice, I like the punk-tone of Paul's voice. I have this "fight" with my mates everyone we go to see IM live :)

Dogma?

Although you probably didn't mean https://youtu.be/Cz6FOyTmFUA it's what jumped to my mind, it's a really beautiful song for sure.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#230

Post by [deleted] »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #227
peteretep wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s foolish to assume supernormal returns on investment in a highly competitive market without either innovation or insight, yes.

Assume supernormal returns? Who did you mean to reply to? If it was me, why are you creating words out of thin air and placing them in my mouth?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN