No Free Lunch for Chris Anderson
Chris Anderson, the Editor of Wired Magazine, who has made a mint stating the obvious (The Long Tail
“Free” is essentially an extended elaboration of Stewart Brand’s famous declaration that “information wants to be free.” The digital age, Anderson argues, is exerting an inexorable downward pressure on the prices of all things “made of ideas.” Anderson does not consider this a passing trend. Rather, he seems to think of it as an iron law: “In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.” To musicians who believe that their music is being pirated, Anderson is blunt. They should stop complaining, and capitalize on the added exposure that piracy provides by making money through touring, merchandise sales, and “yes, the sale of some of [their] music to people who still want CDs or prefer to buy their music online.”
As I have said before, I know a great many musicians in their 60′s and 70′s with a lifetime of recorded music that is being devalued by Anderson’s ethos and attitude. While he’s out giving $30,000 lectures on “Free” , they are facing bankruptcy because of health costs. It is little comfort that this smart-ass tells them to go out and tour. Obviously we have been trying to counter this nonsense on this blog for a while, but Gladwell has a great platform to debunk Anderson’s hypocritical claims (he sells his books and doesn’t give away Wired Magazine).
It would be nice to know, as well, just how a business goes about reorganizing itself around getting people to work for “non-monetary rewards.” Does he mean that the New York Timesshould be staffed by volunteers, like Meals on Wheels? Anderson’s reference to people who “prefer to buy their music online” carries the faint suggestion that refraining from theft should be considered a mere preference. And then there is his insistence that the relentless downward pressure on prices represents an iron law of the digital economy. Why is it a law? Free is just another price, and prices are set by individual actors, in accordance with the aggregated particulars of marketplace power. “Information wants to be free,” Anderson tells us, “in the same way that life wants to spread and water wants to run downhill.” But information can’t actually want anything, can it? Amazon wants the information in the Dallas paper to be free, because that way Amazon makes more money. Why are the self-interested motives of powerful companies being elevated to a philosophical principle?
The “Free Economy” has certainly benefited Google and a few other powerful corporations. I’d be hard put to find a single artist it has helped. Maybe Anderson should donate all his book royalties to The Blues Foundation.
Glad you cleared that up so I didnt have to. It’s called APRA in Australia – Aust Perf Rights Assoc.
Ms. Hirschman,
I value your “two cents’” worth. Seriously, thank you for commenting so deeply and seriously. Damn, you make me think.
Hugo
Jon,
I wonder about this:
“I know a great many musicians in their 60’s and 70’s with a lifetime of recorded music that is being devalued by Anderson’s ethos and attitude”
I am a person who makes a living through creative endeavors, and I don’t have the luxury of re-selling my work over and over and over. Oh, wait. It’s not even selling. It’s licensing.
Musicians, though, as well as many of the creatives that populate the studio world, do exactly that. But where is the fee for an architect when someone looks at his building? What about a painter’s ‘life time’ of work? Is she compensated every time someone sees her work? There are plenty of examples of creative work, some not so obvious; why is music any different? We do our work, and we move on.
I want people to make money for creative work, and I don’t begrudge the sums involved. Something, though, is askew here.
I’m just sayin’. Do I have a solution? If only.
And as to Ms. Hirschman, I respectfully think her supposition– that music must be protected as special in some way– is way off the mark. The plainly unfair existing system has so worked into the collective conscious that another solution, equally obvious, is over-looked: musicians are paid when the make the music, thank you very much. Now what else can you do that I might buy?
Oh. And look. I don’t want to start a war, and I don’t pose these questions in any sort of mean spirited way, and I am hoping someone can explain some logical basis for what we have now?
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/08/23/On-Music
I don’t think these are new ideas. It is interesting how many of those who helped to deflate the business believe they have a role in keeping it alive as long as it follows their vision of how things ought to be.
Note, Tim wants to promote his favs in that piece and they have to be performing artists. Once again, it is a very naive description of the business itself that tends to ignore the actual infrastructure required.
Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
onlineuniversalwork