The real cost of free: a response

Cory Doctorow and other advocates of giving work away for free as a promotional tool are defeatist about the future for creatorsTwo months ago I wrote a blog on "media gurus" who charge hefty fees for promoting "free" as a business model. The blog drew some pretty angry responses, with Guardian contributor Cory Doctorow posting a response, accusing me of not understanding how giving work away for free works as a promotional tool. I'd like to address some of the points he and other critics made.One argument against my stance was that there's no point in trying to prevent copying, as it's so easy to do ? and is only getting easier. It is so easy to violate the artist's choice, why bother respecting the rules that protect that choice? However, there are many things that are easy to do, yet are not legally or morally right ? for instance, posting anonymous threats saying you'd like to kill someone.Just because an illegal act is easier to commit on the web, in the comfort of an anonymous mob, than in the physical world where there is a greater likelihood of apprehension doesn't mean that our laws and ethics should somehow be suspended. Equally, it doesn't mean I believe in suing individuals for illegally downloading. And, in my experience, neither do the vast majority of record labels.Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.Producing a record ? as opposed to writing most books ? tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring ? people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.And the number of people involved in making a record is still dwarfed by the hundreds of people involved in making a movie. That's why directors and artists sign away some of their rights in return for investment. Independent label Beggars Group recently told me that they'd so far invested about �200,000 in Mercury prize winners The xx.Of course, record labels and artists have, for decades, chosen to give music away for free, as a marketing tool. But they tend to do it under controlled circumstances. Even Radiohead required fans to register before paying what they wanted for In Rainbows. Meanwhile, I'd question how good peer-to-peer sites are at promoting artists. The artist receives no data on who has downloaded their material, or where they're located (information that can help them plan tours or allocate other resources).Many songwriters and producers I know have been excited about getting their songs recorded, only to see it given away as a free digital download by the artist or label. Though it may help promote the artist it does nothing to promote these writers and producers, as downloads don't display any credits.Another argument used by proponents of the "free" business model is that record labels have mistreated artists for decades and so deserve to go out of business ? so to them I guess two wrongs make a right.I'm not denying that many labels have screwed their artists - I've frequently talked about that in my Behind the Music blogs. But why does that justify screwing the artist twice? There are now artists who are partners with their labels, or other investors, so that their career can be handled in a more transparent way ? often the artists even get to retain the ownership of their creations. Yet, for these investments to be made in recording, marketing and promoting the artist, as well as providing tour support for them, the investor will have to see a return on their investment.I signed my first publishing deal almost 10 years ago with BMG, who ended up being bought by Universal. Sure, I've had my issues with them through the years. Yet I don't regret signing with them as they provided me, an unproven songwriter, with the means to write music full time (I'm sure authors can relate) and develop my craft. They've even agreed to give the songs that haven't yet been covered back to me ? despite not having to, contractually.Doctorow's blog stated:"You know who peddles false hope to naive would-be artists? People who go around implying that but for all those internet pirates, there'd be full creative employment for all of us."I have never met anyone ? and I mean anyone ? who has ever said or implied that.He added that the majority of artists will never make a living from their music ? which is not news. It's a common misconception that artists demand to get paid for work that no one is interested in. They don't. But they do expect to get paid for work that millions are interested in.The average professional songwriter can write 50 songs in a year, of which a handful, possibly, might make it onto a commercial release. Of those, maybe one or two will be so successful that thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of people will want to listen to them over and over again at their own leisure. They'd be the only songs the songwriter hopes to earn some sort of money from.Many of the "media gurus" mentioned in my previous blog advocate Creative Commons, a not-for-profit body set up, in part, by Lawrence Lessig, and part-sponsored by Google, according to the Creative Commons website. In theory, releasing digital works under a Creative Commons licence allows "non-commercial" sharing, replacing the concept of "all rights reserved" with "some rights reserved". To quote internet guru Tim O'Reilly, they appear to think that "obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy".For some creators, this could well be true. However, others would argue that the principle of CC licensing is simply to give creative works away for free in what Lessig calls the "hybrid economy". Giving away the works benefits the owners of the distribution platform, such as Flickr, YouTube or Google, not the individual creators licensing their works under Creative Commons. And there are other issues. For instance: what constitutes "non-commercial"? Selling YouTube for $1.65bn? Selling Flickr for $35m?While I believe licensing music has to become much more fluid, I don't think copyright in itself is the problem. Copyright hasn't been about copying since 1846, when it became much more sophisticated; it's about bringing a bundle of rights to market. All transmission technologies since electricity rely on a performance right of some kind.There are many tech companies that do see value in music and are excited about working in partnership with rights holders ? without requiring them to surrender any of their rights ? many of them run or founded by musicians. These are just some of the companies I've covered in my blogs: AWAL, PureSolo and We7 .I believe a successful future for content creators consists of a combination of solutions, one of them being unlimited ISP music subscriptions bundled in with their broadband access deals.I agree with technologist, musician and internet optimist Jaron Lanier that the concept of Web 2.0 is very pessimistic about human nature.In just a few years, we've seen incredible innovation in terms of delivering content in sophisticated ways, with new technology and rights holders working in partnership, and we've discovered that people are willing to pay for the really good ones ? and this is just the beginning. I believe it's detrimental to suggest that creators should be defeatist and not participate in this evolution ? that what they've created has no value so they may as well give it away.Charging for contentDigital mediaInternetHelienne Lindvallguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

internet