In Chris Anderson is Wrong: FreeDOM, not Free, is the Future of Business, Dawn Douglass at CenterNetworks does her sincere best to raise a red flag about Chris "Long Tail" Anderson's idea that $0 is the Future of Business. Based on her bad experience trying to get web sites to pay anything for syndicated comics, I don't blame her.
However, I thought her survey of the territory was a bit tough on the geek pioneers who created this new landscape and neglected the rich possibilities that lie over the next hill.
Here's my response:
Amen to your prioritization of freedom (creativity, autonomy, self-reliance) over commerce. The race to $0 marginal value has consequences and I'm glad you are giving voice to them.
However, you lay an awful lot of blame on geeks, as if they are so oblivious to the value of other creatives that they are willing to trample everyone else's livelihoods beneath the sandaled feet of their hippie "free" tech culture.
On the contrary, tech culture from the beginning has been about freedom as you value it - freedom to compute, to create, to share ideas and goods (digital usually) which, initially, have no intrinsic value. It just happens that this incubator for created value also provides the means for sharing/stealing those same digital goods once they prove their value.
You seem to think Geeks hacked into our brains one day and injected the thought, "Hmmm, I'd rather pay $0 for cool stuff". I believe that was already "burned-in" to the ROM of human nature. Wouldn't you agree?
As you rightly point out, though, the human impulse for FREE becomes a big problem for artists (like musicians and cartoonists) who have traditionally relied on an entrenched channel (music label or newspaper) to control and monetize their work.
First, recognize that controlled channels are gone and not coming back. Second, understand that while a creator's relationship to the Demon Commerce was indirect before, it is now either more direct (i.e. T-shirts) or more subtle (monetizing attention).
Taking your example, Bill Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes fame. He's a peerless national treasure, to be sure, but delusional if he thinks he never participated in commerce. Notice that his work was given away for $0 marginal value every day in the newspaper. It was copied, passed around and plagiarized. Yet, he thrived because his amazing art was paid for by coupon inserts, classified ads for busted washing machines, and shameless pitches for shady vacation timeshares.
Would a banner ad have threatened his artistic integrity any more than that?
What has changed for the 21st century Bill Wattersons?
1. Content creators don't need to wait to be discovered by a cigar-chomping comics editor somewhere. They can self-publish online and build an audience (and a brand) virally.
2. They can monetize their attention immediately and directly, themselves. And, they get to say which kind of soap they are willing to sell.
3. They do have to be aware that once they publish a piece of work online, they can't control its dissemination, only exploit its popularity. For instance, once Monday rolls around, Sunday's cartoon is "worthless" (already downloaded, emailed, devalued to $0). But, happily, each "stolen" copy becomes a walking, talking ($0 cost) advertisement for more of the same. The artist's brand builds and they can capitalize on that: Page views become ad revenue and [Buy Now] buttons sell books full of their "worthless" cartoons for a hefty profit with no middle-man, etc.
No doubt, geeks have accidentally engineered a huge change in the landscape for content and content creators. But, if you look around, I believe you might see a landscape fertile with more possibilities (and profit for creatives) than the one it plowed under.
The "free" content economy has its boundaries, however. Specifically, I agree that LiveJournal's side-stepping the cartoonists' copyright in your story was blatantly wrong.
Why? Because what they did was persistent, wholesale exploitation of someone else's content. Definitely, "not cool" as you said.
Where's the line between exploitation and exposure?
I like how trademark law settles name disputes using the standards of "diminished value and confusion." You can trademark the same name as another company as long as doing so doesn't cause marketplace confusion (i.e. Acme Trucking won't be confused with Acme Bridal Gowns) and if the use of the name won't diminish the existing company's reputation or value.
Let's apply trademark logic to copying: If a site runs every one of your comic strips without linking to you, it is wrong because it confuses the visitor into thinking that the site owns or licenses your content. It also diminishes your value by using your own content to steal eyeballs from you without giving any back.
On the other hand, why wouldn't a creator be extremely "happy and grateful" when a popular site features an occasional copy of their work with a link? Likewise, they should be thrilled when remix videos, spoofs, even scathing criticism is applied to their work. Any exposure (with proper credit and a link) is really a huge asset, promoting your brand and driving eyeballs to your door.
Still, artists need to stop complaining about "free" and learn to turn that buzz into bucks.
BuzzMeter is an outlet for the idle imagination and opinions of Stephen Jones, a web developer and ardent observer of digital culture. He lives and works in Chicagoland, USA.