This week’s CommLab readings centered around what I think is one of the most fascinating subjects a commercial artist (or any artist who ever wants to sell anything, really) has to deal with today — who owns what, how much is it worth, and how do you go about distributing what’s yours?
In most ways, I find myself agreeing with Clay Shirky’s “Micropayments and Free Content” in that the second you’re asked to pay for something, you instantly do the mental calculation about how much it’s worth to you, in terms of energy, to buy something. It’s very difficult to think, in your mind, why something is worth a quarter to you, yet if the same article/picture/song was free, you’d be happy to read/see/listen to it. And, if it’s free and you appreciate the work in question, you’re generally quite likely to pass it along to friends/colleagues, and in doing so the artist’s fame/reputation grows.
Great, right? Well, sure, depending on the artist’s vision and plan. If the goal is simply to share ideas and/or works, cool! If the goal is to make money off the art (and, y’know, eat) and this leads to better gigs, sponsorship or advertising, great. But if they become rich in influence but poor in the pocket, that can be a problem. Suffering for your art is one thing, but having your best work shared around while you starve must suck, I’d imagine. This, of course, is both the cause of and solution to one of the biggest problems in the post-mechanical age — how do you regulate the trade of something that can be replicated infinitely? Are you actually “selling” or “buying” any object, or rather are you “renting” the chance for the consumer to see/listen/read it for a specified amount of time?
The lines are blurred quite a bit in the music world, which is likely where this subject has gotten the most attention (or at least the most press). If you buy a song from Apple’s iTunes store, you’re limited to only playing it on computers with iTunes, and from that, only 5 computers can play the same song. Is this ownership or rental? If you bought a basketball but were told you’d only be allowed to play on five courts at a time, and that you’d need to play on a certain-colored surface, you’d never buy it. However, any time big stuffy record companies are involved, the stupid becomes the norm.
I realize it’s old news by now, but the Grey Album still rules. It’s not just a great idea — it’s great MUSIC start to finish. However, the story behind it is still worth talking about. The best part about it, in my mind, is that (just like with U2/Negativland) Jay-Z openly said he loved it. The only legal actions were issued by the company representing The Beatles — which has nothing to do with The Beatles themselves these days (they don’t even own their masters!). The music industry, time after time, continues to respond to any “threat” to their kingdom (usually an improvement, rather than a direct challenge) with outright hostility, and approaches advances in the industry as an ostrich does by sticking its head in the sand — avoidance. It’s silly, but it’s the way it goes — and while we can hope that indies will continue to reshape the way music is bought, sold and licensed, there’s a long way to go.
Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one — so said H. L. Mencken (who died fifty years ago), before this crazy internet thing became all the rage with those youngsters I see at the malls. These days, anyone with internet access can reach anyone — the problem isn’t getting the word out, but rather reaching the right people. Cutting through the clutter is now priority one, and influence/fame/power/branding/whateveryouwanttocallit is a powerful currency. More so than hard cash? Beats me, I’m just a poor grad student.
The funny thing, to me anyway, is how much we expect to pay for things, and therefore what inherent value we give them. I personally have no problem spending $5 on a beer (and therefore easily $20 in a night out), but shy away from a healthy lunch that might cost $8, or even taking the subway. Why? The healthy lunch would be good for me, and my body needs food. The subway is only $2, and gets me from point A to point B nearly effortlessly. And alcohol is poision, and terrible for every part of my body… so why am I okay with this system? I’ll pay $9 to see a movie in theatres, therefore only paying to see it once, but I won’t spend that same money to purchase the DVD, whereby I could watch it over and over again. At some point we all develop inherent mental calculators, and we attach acceptable costs to things (which is why the world “SALE” can wreck such havok — you might not want it, but damnit, it’s 50% off!) — and honestly, most of us would happily spend half our paychecks on expensive meals, beer and other things that will rot our heads, but we shy away from buying things we need, or even life-enriching items like books or classes (not counting grad school, obviously).
Post a Comment