June 2nd, 2006
Lawrence Lessig and free media
I caught Mitch Ratcliffe’s recent blog post, titled "Lessig’s Razor," and found myself in wild agreement. Opposing Lawrence Lessig’s position on the importance - or rather, the lack thereof - of digital copyright, Mitch noted that lawyers (which Lessig is) rarely produce the writing or video or music that people of their own volition want to consume, barring those who derive a weird pleasure from reading text associated with patent applications or the legalese included with electronics components.
What followed was the best combination of words I’ve read in quite awhile on ZDNet:
The big question is how artists, writers, performers and others who dedicate themselves to creative work and make no living from a "day job" are going to get paid. This doesn’t mean one has to be a "paid professional" to be a writer or artist or filmmaker, only that if one does choose to make their living that way, they need to put food on the table just like anyone else. And, if they produce a great work or monstrous hit, why shouldn’t they live in a big house and eat caviar from the belly buttons of their favored gender or contribute their fortunes to charity and schools for the art, should they so choose? After all, it’s only fair given the nature of the economy that someone who bets everything on their creativity should get paid when they make something people want, enjoy or participate in with zest.
Belly button caviar, now that’s an image you won’t forget!
Yagotta B. Kidding, the nearly ubiqituous Talkbacker whose been in these forums nearly as long as I have, responded by noting the opinions of a certain Eric Flint. Mr. Flint has found that the Internet enables him to achieve a wider audience larger than he could ever have hoped in its absence. He thus considers free libraries of his content to be an essential driver to his popularity, and thus, Lessig’s opinion as to whether content creators should be obligated to allow free copying notwithstanding, no harm done, as content creators still get their filthy lucre. Quoting him:
The first, repeated over and again, is that the major obstacle which little-known writers face is their obscurity. (And almost ALL writers are little known.) Readers are hesitant to spend money on an author they are not familiar with. As I argued in my introduction to the Baen Free Library, that’s why authors should welcome the internet — despite the inevitable piracy which it entails — rather than dreading it. I can say with great confidence, based on these 123 letters, that I’ve sold four or five times as many books of my own because of the exposure which the Free Library and Webscriptions have given me than I’ve lost through putting the books up online for free.
I really can’t argue that he’s mistaken, as it’s fairly well known that a number of very famous people would have remained undiscovered artists save for the existence of the Internet. Arctic Monkeys, a band from the UK, built a fan base almost entirely from Internet word of mouth and download of their songs.
The Internet - and free as in cost media - is clearly an important component of a modern media marketing campaign. Where the analysis falls apart, however, is when it is taken to the extreme Lessig advocates and states that all digital information should be priced at the cost of reproduction, which in the case of online media, is essentially free.
In spite of the marketing value the band derived from online distribution, Arctic Monkeys CDs are NOT free, and their recording company would be rather annoyed with you if you made MP3’s out of all the songs on their CD and posted them on your web site. Heck, I would bet that the members of the band would be annoyed with you as well.
Free samples are a great way to spread the good word. That does not mean that making your entire music library available for free is a great way to build your business. I’m glad that Eric Flint managed to sell more books by posting the complete contents online, and to be honest, should I ever decide to write my own book, I’ll carefully consider his experience. However, reading a book on your computer is like jamming icicles into your eyeballs (IMHO). Playing digital music is little different than playing a CD, particularly in an iPod world where digital music in huge quantities can be squeezed onto something approaching the size of a stick of gum.
That, of course, is the situation today. Consider what will happen in five years, when digital paper becomes widespread and those digital copies are as easy to read as your favorite printed copy of Adam Smith’s "Wealth of Nations." Will Eric Flint be as enthusiastic about "free libraries" when people stop buying his books because the digital version is as easy to read as the old fashioned printed product?
Compensation of artists matters, unless an ideal world is confined to the content rich people feel like paying for - which explains why we have so many portraits of fat rich people from Dutch masters of the 17th century. People who do something great SHOULD be compensated, irrespective of whether their creation can be expressed digitally (which, as I noted in a past blog related to the philosophy of Ray Kurzweil, will include traditional physical assets in a world of nanotechnology).
John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to A Developer's View via Email alerts or RSS.
| 06/02/06
