Slashdot Mirror
What Makes Something "Better Than Free"?
Stanislav_J writes "In a very thought-provoking essay entitled 'Better Than Free' Kevin Kelly, Senior Maverick at Wired, probes the question of how thoughts, ideas and words that are so constantly, easily, and casually copied can still have economic value. 'If reproductions of our best efforts are free,' he asks, 'how can we keep going? To put it simply, how does one make money selling free copies?' He enumerates and explains eight qualities that can, indeed, make something financially viable — 'better than free.' A very timely article in light of the constant discussion of RIAA/piracy/copyright issues."
His article was posted two weeks ago on boingboing and discussed quite a bit. I have to admit to being one of the detractors of his idea (which I think reduces artists and creators to beggars trying to eek out a living). I also think he talks too much in generalities, and that makes his ideas seem more persuasive. The minute you think about specific things (how does his ideas apply to X), his ideas often don't apply at all, or reduces the income from digital creations to pennies on the dollar.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/02/kevin-kelly-better-t.html
A lot of files on P2P networks are mislabeled. You'll see a file going around titled "Cocteau Twins - The Thinner the Air (Massive Attack remix)" which Massive Attack didn't actually have anything to do with (probably just some teenager adding beats onto the song with his home computer).
In the print publishing world, however, deceptive labeling is common. Think about the $2 "Webster's Dictionaries" you can get at a supermarket. They are paperbacks often printed on newsprint and haven't been updated in decades. Not an appealing product, but the presence of the freely usable term "Webster's" gives them a shine of reputability. However, the real standard American English abridged dictionary is something like Meriam-Webster's Collegiate and people might want to spend a little more if they know they are getting the right thing.
You presume that the creators would expect to be paid for the distribution of copies and that 'bootleggers' would take any profit out of that.
So, the solution isn't to become a pauper. Its to figure out how to make money despite the bootleggers. For example, pre-sales - if enough fans pay for enough advance copies to make the production worthwhile, then the creators still make money, the fans still get new productions from creators they like and the bootleggers can still sell knock off copies to every one else. Take it a step further and the creators can sell subscriptions - as long as enough subscription moneys come in, they keep releasing the next in line - be it tv episodes, songs for the next 'album' or even movies (like sequels, or just new works from known quantities).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I've been thinking about this sort of thing recently, and here are a few of my ideas (wrt music).
What the music industry should have done is this:
Create a decent online store and classify the music as either popular (the Brtineys, Metallicas etc), historical (the Creams, Johnny Cashes etc), or up-and-coming (the Modest Mouses, Jason Webleys etc) where they DON'T sell the biggest hits, they give them away, when you purchase a different track from the same artist, as well as a track from any band classified 'up-and=coming'. Personally, I think $1 a track is quite a bit too much, but whatever, they'd have to discover the actual price point. Regardless, basically three tunes for the price of two.
If even a small percentage of those who buy then go and buy further tracks from the u&c bands, it would be promoting new and less homogenized music, as well as making the smaller bands more profitable for the labels.
For big acts (U2, the Stones, that sort of thing), I'd also offer some meatspace uber-boxset, with absolutely EVERYTHING they've done. These half-asses boxsets that are actually offered nowadays don't appeal to me at all. DVDs of all their studio work, a few DVDs of all known live recordings, a DVD of demos, DVDs of all known video, a book about the band, a book of all known tour and show posters, etc... Basically, I mean EVERYTHING. Number the boxsets and sell the first ten for a ridiculous price (maybe a couple thousand), and the next hundred for maybe twice the general price. Anybody else can get it for $200 or whatever... I know there are several bands that I would have happily payed that amount, and judging by the twenty to thirty million people who entered the lottery to see Zeppelin for $300 (IIRC), there are bound to be plenty of others like me.
Then, instead of the current rush ticket buying system for concerts we have now, I'd open the sales to those who bought the boxset first, followed by those who have bought tracks from the online store, followed by the general public. As well, bases on the areas the boxsets have sold well in, I'd do another concert, for $500 per couple, limited to 300 or 400 people. Personally, I wouldn't have paid $100 to see Zeppelin with 20,000 other people, but I would have paid quite a bit more than $500 to see them with only 400 people. Let everyone at the show meet the band. Considering what deranged, out-of-touch twats so many of these celebrities have become, it would be doing them a favour.
Anyhow, that's my 2c. An industry which is providing something people want has clearly fscked up when they have become as hated as the IRS.
The things that are listed in the article are nowhere near enough to compensate an author for the time it takes to write a book. Hence, less people would write books. You don't see that as dangerous direction to go?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
... That so many people equate successful ideas with monetary value. How is religion successful? Were there people going around asking individuals to buy into the Renaissance? We, as a society, focus altogether too much on how to make a quick buck off of something that we ignore the fact that some ideas are just damn good. A good idea sells itself. Bad ideas have to be marketed to the idiots. And we should be asking, is money the point or are we making it INTO the point?
A price. That cannot be avoided (ie piracy kills the value of objects and ideas).
Artists have been making work for centuries without often being compensated for their work and many eventually dying in abject poverty only to be recognized for their talents years after their deaths.
One could argue that if one could not make money off of art then only those really interested creating art "for the sake of art" would be doing so. If copyrights went away tomorrow, there would still be musicians playing on the street corner, photographers taking pictures, painters making paintings, and writers writer stories. Now granted there will be a lot less of them, but people still desire to create work for the reward in itself rather than a monetary return. That may be a good thing or bad things depending on how you view it but I think aesthetics will enjoy the fact corporations are no longer actively creating art and the average joe will probaly not like it because no one is making art he likes anymore.
Personally, I think the ideal solution was how things were back in the middle ages. If you wanted art, you commissioned someone to do it. If no one is willing to commission it then either you give away your works for free or don't make them. The key problem with the current system is that it derives art for profit which is sometimes shallow at best due to the fact its creating something to be consumed rather than observed as art. (Damn I sound like a turtle neck art snob with a glass of wine complaining about the sad state of affairs at the New York Art gallery, but I hope you get my point)
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
vertinox, of course I agree with your assessment.
I have been using for a year now a "commission" model to make a living off of my music. Besides the more "traditional" methods of earning money as a musician and composer, I create one-of-a-kind works on commission. After an interview and rather extensive set of conversations, I create from 20-50 minutes of music and then give the work completely to the patron, no rights reserved. They could copy it and sell it if they want, but I never will. They could even put their own name on it if they want, but I warn them it will probably decrease its value (unless their name is Bono). So far, nobody has taken that route, though.
Oh, I also charge for this work on a sliding scale, based upon income and political orientation (I require proof of income, too). The prices have ranged from the cost of an evening out for two at the movies to 5 figures. It's sort of like the way the fine artists have always worked, and when I figure in my time and expenses, my price-per-hour is about the same as a low to mid-level painter or sculptor (but I'm just getting started).
As you say, if copyright went away tomorrow, there would still me music, books, even movies. Also, there will still be artists making a living at it, and in new and interesting ways. Creative people are supposed to be innovators, so why shouldn't that extend to the ways they monetize their efforts?
Ultimately, the price is less important than the value, to me. As long as I can continue to do what I love, what I have to do, I'm happy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I used to spend $1000+ per year on CDs and DVDs, until I discovered The Pirate Bay. Now I pay nothing. I can easily afford to pay the money, but I choose not to, because why should I pay for something that other people (who don't work as hard as I do) can get for free?
I don't begrudge paying the artists, but I DO begrudge being the only sucker who does.
I am the future, and I'll keep on doing it until it becomes too difficult or risky to bother.
and the interesting thing is that the author seems to be aware of that fact. (But maybe not of how it impacts his current thesis.)
Anyway, yeah, 20th century media provided an awful lot of nominal employment, but the jury is still out on how much value they provided. Kind of like Microsoft provided an awful lot of software, but the jury is now reporting on how much real work that software actually did/does. You can sell snake oil for a while, but eventually you find that you have polluted your own market.
But the thing is, when you can get a copy of any manufactured good you want dirt cheap, what good is money? Money is our proxy for value. If nothing has value, how can any proxy function? So, people who believe that value is generated by rarity will look for things that are rare, and this guy found several things that are rare even when everything tangible is copiable.
He kind of alludes to the fact that these eight things have been the actual source of value all along. But he seems to ignore that they all point back the way we have come -- back away from WalMart, back away from centralization. And when you step back away from centralization, you realize, we don't need need any big provider of employment.
All we needed was communication, and the people we were entrusting our communication (not the telephone company, although they did sometimes try) have, for the most part, held our communication for ransom.
We don't need big farming, either. (Nothing sucks the nutrition out of a crop faster than mass producing it.) We can actually produce sufficient food if we produce it locally, in most places. If we can keep unrestrained communication networks, we can produce our own food in the morning, be doctors, scientists, artisans, technicians, teachers, etc., in the afternoon, and philosophers in the evenings. Kind of like what Marx said, but not with the revolutions he assumed were necessary. (Not sure which way is bloodier, but that's a rant for another day.)
And we no longer need the proxy. If my neighbor gets sick, I and some other neighbors go answer his need without insurance money, just because we know that, when he's well, he will be making desks and cabinets and such in his afternoons. If I need a certain kind of desk, I go visit that neighbor (after he's well) and we draw out some plans, and he helps me work out the parts I don't know how to do.
When we can communicate about real value (because no one is holding things for ransom anymore), we no longer need the proxy. And we know longer need others to employee us or be employed by us.
I'm a musician, and I've come to terms with the fact that from now on, music is free. I support other musicians by purchasing LPs and CDs and the occasional MP3 of other artists I like, but for the majority of our audience (the public), our music is free.
How do we, as musicians, make money on our works? By doing the same thing that any underground band has known for a long long time: merch. The money is in the t-shirt, the lighter, the sticker, the wallet, etc. People want that.
That, and vinyl will never die. It is definitely a niche. But for one of my bands, we sell a 7" EP and you get a free MP3 download version of it as well. For one price you get the high quality, inconvenient vinyl and the low quality, convenient MP3. Not a bad model, IMO...
I've bought a few MP3 albums off Bleep before they were available in a physical format, but damn it, I wish for my $10 for the MP3 album, I'd get a $10 coupon to buy the LP or CD...
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
"Now granted there will be a lot less of them..."
Bingo. Further, the current systems funds a large number of people who work "on spec" in the hope that they'll make enough money to eat. Or pay the rent. Or send their kids to college. Which in turn gives me a larger selection of products to buy. Then if and when I decide something has value to me, I pay for it.
Besides, there's a huge difference between "art" and "entertainment". Some people may value "art", but most people pay simply to be entertained.
"Personally, I think the ideal solution was how things were back in the middle ages."
Yeah, like I want my favorite artists and writers and musicians and directors spending all of their time running around looking for commissions and patrons. Sorry, but I prefer it when they're working on new music and books and movies.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.