The real story in nonphysical goods is one of deflation. Value in once-scarce — well, once-controlled — commodities like news, information, and advertising decline as the internet explodes creation and competition. The internet also destroys the ability of many to control distribution and thus value. But at the same time, the internet drastically increases efficiency thanks to platforms and open distribution and the ability — no, the need — to specialize and collaborate.
This is why the old controllers of scarcity have such trouble rethinking and remaking themselves for the economy of abundance. Their reflex is to control more, when that only decreases value.
So stop selling scarcity. Scarcity has no value.
As Jarvis points out the theory holds true for performers, many of whom are finally beginning to understand that ‘putting our content and information out there is how it gets distributed, how we find new people, how we build new relationships, how we realize new value.’ [via Frank Chimero has a blog.]
ck/ck: I suppose that’s a major theme of this decade that has just been: the failure of companies to give consumers what they want, which in turn has resulted in a culture where illegality, piracy and hacking are the norm.
In the wake of news that Capitol Records is suing Vimeo over music employed in the latter’s uploaded video content, Tumblr lead developer Marco Arment offers a copyright ‘thought experiment.’
Marco.org: What if copyright infringement were made completely impossible? What if we had perfect enforcement at the technical level? (I know this isn’t possible, but bear with me. It’s a “thought experiment.”)
Music and video sites would instantly and perfectly detect any copyright infringement in uploaded files and refuse to host them. People would be forced to create (or find) content that’s licensed permissively enough, such as under the Creative Commons, to allow their usage. We’d give the big music and video publishers exactly what they think they want. But it would actually demolish them. It would be the best thing that ever happened to those who speak so strongly against “all rights reserved”-style copyright enforcement.
Today’s demand for permissively licensed content is nearly zero because most people can get away with small-scale infringement. If that were no longer possible, all of these infringements would be replaced by much more demand for permissively licensed content. Any publishers unwilling to satisfy the demand would be left in the dust by those who would.
As a professional performer I tend to agree with Marco, and sense that a vast majority of artists would be on board with a licensing system that facilitated the sharing and creative reuse of their content [especially if that system helped to eliminate the profit-oriented content management mania that infects major media corporations]. Regrettably, the intersection of commercial interest and art rarely yields such a neat solution; we can probably only hope that the persistent openness of the internets forces broad acceptance of a model like the one Marco envisions.
The always diverting and discerning Stephen Fry speaks on the history of copyright, and offers thoughts on file sharing and the future of entertainment. [Download this talk or subscribe to Fry’s Podgrams series here.]
As the program makes clear, nothing could be better for creatives and performers [not to mention listeners] than the complete breakdown of the twentieth-century music industry business model in the face of the persistent openness of the internets and digital media. The following exchange between Rick Karr and independent musician Amanda Palmer encapsulates the new reality for artists:
Rick Karr: You may be the only optimistic person we’ve talked to in the entire music business … ten years ago the industry was selling 13.5 billion dollars worth of records, last year … 8 billion. And we’ve heard people say that the live touring industry is collapsing because it’s consolidated to the point where it’s just unsustainable anymore. And yet, you’re sitting here and … you sound really optimistic.
Amanda Palmer: People don’t love music any less. There might be a lot less money out there in the industry, but maybe that’s a good thing … Are you doing this to be rich and famous or are you doing this because you really love music and you want to connect with people, and you’ll do it even if it just means you make a living wage? If that’s true, I’m a fan of the new system.
Classical musicians, who more than most in the music business are positioned to offer an unparalleled live listening experience and through it a special connection with listeners, have generally been slow to wholeheartedly embrace new and independent approaches to presentation, programming and media. It’s time for concert artists to put creative programming front and center and to acknowledge that the reduced relative value of media practically demands that we share it with our listeners in an effort to engage them in our live work.
And a thought related to my own interests as a music fan: If you’ve ever wondered why a contemporary classical musician would be as stimulated by hip hop as I am, consider the OTM segment on sampling and the way the technique’s obsession with musical material and influence echoes the very same process in art music throughout the centuries. Perhaps that internal musical logic is the reason why hip hop was initially misunderstood by monetization-obsessed record labels, and why it has turned out to be a hugely influential musical genre in the very era of the industry’s collapse.
Since its founding over a decade ago, Los Angeles-based Stones Throw Records has authored the book on running a responsible, artistically significant label in the digital age. A deep respect for artists and for the process of creation along with a serious commitment to live performance form the core of Stones Throw’s approach; no surprise it produces and promotes some of today’s most vivid independent music.
Those same qualities also facilitate ST’s unique approach to the inevitable intellectual property issues that accompany sample-based music. Apparently open dialogue and a shared sense of purpose can actually supercede outmoded copyright limitations, at least in Stones Throw’s thriving little corner of the music business.
Somewhat related, this just in: Dark Night of the Soul, a significant new record by Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse, will be distributed solely as a blank CD-R due to the former’s legal issues with EMI stemming from a sampling dispute. For now you can stream it at NPR, or use your googling skills [read: album name + artist name + filesharing service name] to – as a Danger Mouse spokesperson suggested – ‘hear the music, by whatever means.’
A key issue facing musicians in the digital age is an ongoing shift in the relative values of recording and performance. Simon Jenkin’s take on old and new for the Guardian stands out for its resonance on this topic, cutting to the core of the contemporary relationship between taped and live:
Much of the power of enjoying music lies in being in the presence of its makers, in the intimacy of live. That a million people have visited [the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra and Gustavo] Dudamel’s YouTube prom performance does not diminish the appeal of a concert but enhances it. The web is not a rival to live but an aid to it, a publicity tool. It is the medium but not the message.
This axiom applies to audio recordings as well [something I’ve highlighted before as it relates to digital media] and is a guiding principle of my efforts to share my own performances with you via the web.
