When Copies Are Free: Part 2

The third generative that grabbed my attention was the art of personalization. Kevin explores this generative through the idea that consumers will pay for something that is tailored directly to them and to no one else. While he applies the idea to medicine based off of a person’s DNA, a book that is custom edited to incorporate a reader’s previous background in literature, or a movie edited to fit the rating desired by the viewer, his take on music is exceptionally unique: “A generic version of a concert recording may be free, but if you want t copy that has been tweaked to sound perfect in your particular living room – as if it were preformed in your room – you may be willing to pay a lot” (par 15). I know that I would. This idea of customization based on a consumers personal preferences or desires could be a serious coup for the music business as the EQ of a recording can be changed, set lists can be chosen by the fans before the show, and even merch can be personalized. A new website, Zazzle.com, has given consumers and music fans the ability to customize any piece of a band’s merch. By creating a partnership with MySpace, the companies “will enable musicians with MySpace pages to create virtual stores for T-shirts, posters and other merchandise, using artwork and graphics that their fans can customize when they order it” (Smith par 1). As bands can upload their graphics, users will now be able to custom edit these to their own preferences, order the type of clothing or merchandise that they would like their new design to printed on, and can even receive the item within a week at most. By created a service such as this, not only will bands allow fans to interact with the material, but it also allows for “an ongoing conversation between the creator and consumer, artist and fan, producer and user” (Better par 15). This conversation and interaction is the key to personalization and will allow the industry to move away from the formulaic presentation of acts and the media that they can offer to their fans.

Another of the generatives that Kevin mentioned in his article was that of accessibility, and while I completely agree with his overall concept, I don’t think he took the idea to the furthest level. While he talks about accessibility of the product on all digital mediums such as phones, PDAs, laptops, TVs and etcetera, I believe that there is a larger significance. Having unlimited access to all of the material and artist has created is all fine and dandy, but in today’s age, it is easy said and done as the internet gives anyone access to anything at anytime. But what about access to the artist him/herself? Wouldn’t people pay more for an album, concert ticket, piece of merchandise, etcetera, if it meant that they might have the chance to actually meet and talk to the artist? Or what about exclusive fan clubs that offer meet and greets before and after shows, special acoustic or small club shows, and even photo shoots or music videos?

In another article written by Kevin in which he explores how the Long Tail phenomenon can apply to donations to an artists as her primary source of income, he describes a situation in which Jill Sobule, a Canadian singer songwriter, has been asking her true fans for donations to fund her next studio album. In a sense, she used herself as an auction item to raise enough money to create the product that the true fans really desired. According to an interview she did with the Canadian Press:

Contributors can choose a level of pledges ranging from the $10 "unpolished rock," which earns them a free digital download of her disc when it's made, to the $10,000 "weapons-grade plutonium level," where she promises "you get to come and sing on my CD. Don't worry if you can't sing - we can fix that on our end." For a $5,000 contribution, Sobule said she'll perform a concert in the donor's house. The lower levels are more popular, where donors can earn things like an advanced copy of the CD, a mention in the liner notes and a T-shirt identifying them as a "junior executive producer" of the CD (One Thousand par 29).

While Kevin was right about how listeners want to have the ability to access their content anywhere, anytime, and on any device, I think he missed a significant part of point of accessibility: it is nice to have such accessibility to the content, but nicer to have access to the artist on a more personal level.

The final generative that I feel is essential to the future of the music industry is that of patronage and how audiences will pay creators for their work. Though similar to the ideas discussed above, in the end, it all comes down to the perception that the fans have of the artist and how they will be paid in the future. As he states, consumers “will only pay if it is very easy to do, a reasonable amount, and they feel certain the money will directly benefit the creators” (Better par 20). And with this one, he hit the nail on the head. While band like Radiohead have figured out that by eliminating the business model presented by a label, the majors have still not caught on to the idea that people do not need to be forced into a specific model. As different people will pay different amounts, or even participate in other ways, a new business model has emerged centered around generosity. And surprisingly enough, as Radiohead has proved and countless others will duplicate in the future, people are willing to pay if it is a band they care enough about (I hesitate to quote any speculation of actual sales since Radiohead has refuted most recent guesstimate and still won’t reveal their current success).

Despite what “the experts” have been saying, I am of the opinion of Kevin that the future of the music industry is not as dim as it has been projected to be. Music is more popular now that it has ever been before, but instead of making a profit through traditional means, the creators themselves will have to begin to rely on their creative abilities not only for their music, but for how they sell it as well. These generatives seem to be the keys, at least for now, and as artists and labels begin adopting these new practices and values, new and exciting opportunities will present themselves not only for the creators, but for the users as well. Keep your eyes open and ears tuned in, and let me know what you find out.

Kelly, Kevin. "Better Than Free." The Technium 31 Jan 2008 . 1 Feb 2008 .

Kelly, Kevin. "Onethousand True Fans." The Technium 4 Mar 2008 . 11 Mar 2008 <>.

Smith, Ethan. "Virtual Art Gets Body." Wall Street Journal.com 30 Oct 2007. 23 Feb 2008 .

When Copies Are Free: Part 1

I once had a conversation with my dad about the new culture (or at least from his standards) of downloading digital music for free. See, to him, and most from his generations and almost certainly from the generations before him, downloading music for free seems to be a crime. Not one in as much as to be fined by the RIAA, because after all, if a whole generation of kids is doing it, how can holding an infinitely small amount of them accountable going to change anything. But to him, it is more so a sense of robbing the artist of what they deserve: “How would you feel if you wrote something and someone copied it for free?” Well considering I’m posting this blog for free, probably not all that bad. But that is just an ignorant artist/writer/creator point of view, but the point of view for an entire generation, and maybe even multiple generations as every age group from now on will be of the “iPod” generation.

While the conversation came to a head, my dad made a great point: “Well if artist aren’t going to sell music anymore because everything is free, then what are they going to sell?” Of course I could point out the obvious: concert tickets, merchandise at shows and online, live tracks or DVDs, and maybe even the occasional backstage pass or limited edition poster. But in one form or the other, all of these income sources have always existed in addition to record sales, and some even before that. In today’s digital world, where all copies are free and it is virtually impossible to keep content from being duplicated and distributed, how do artists and labels make money?

This is exactly the question explored by Kevin Kelly, the founder and executive editor of Wired magazine, in his blog post titled “Better Than Free.” As he frames it: “If reproductions of our best efforts are free, how can we keep going? To put it simply, how does one make money selling free copies?” (Kelly par 4). In this case, the laws of supply and demand may be on the side of the artist, for when a good is easily available to everyone, the price will drop as a result. But what if the good or service is not in full supply, but in limited amounts? As he later goes on to answer, “When copies are super abundant, they become worthless. When copies are super abundant, stuff which can’t be copied becomes scares and valuable.” or in other words, “When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied” (par 6-7). In the end, as supply is restricted, demand will rise, and a premium can be charged for what people cannot easily obtain, but still want access too.


So what exactly cannot be copied? In the article, Kevin describes eight qualities that he labels “generatives” as the saving graces of the music industry. As he describes them:

A generative value is a quality or attribute that must be generated, grown, cultivated, nurtured. A generative thing cannot be copied, clones, faked, replicated, counterfeited, or reproduces. It is generated uniquely, in place, over time. In the digital arena, generative qualities add value to free copies, and therefore are something that can be sold (par 12).

Of the eight he describes, being immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity, accessibility, embodiment, patronage, and findability, I will analyze those that I feel apply directly to the music industry and the role of the independent band or label.

The first of these eight that I feel is most applicable to the music industry is the time dependent function of immediacy. As Kevin explains in the article, in today’s digital world, sooner or later, there will be copies of whatever a listener wants all over the web. It is not a question of if or how, but when. Part of what many creators must do to combat the potentially negative (although this may be debatable as well) effects of having their material available for free on the web at some point is to establish a relationship with their listeners that allows the fans to receive the material first. As Kevin sees it, people will pay a premium for material that they want the second it is released if there is a way for them to obtain it at that moment. He demonstrates this by way of other media: people will wait in line and pay a higher price to see a movie the first night it is released in theaters, and the same even goes for hard cover books, concert tickets, and in the past, records. But in today’s digital world, a supplementary aspect must be added to entice people to line up and pay that extra premium for music. As he suggests, a process in which “fans are brought into the generative process itself” may be just the kick-start that many artists and records need (par 14). Imagine the excitement that would be created if a band opened up their creative processes to the public. From the first steps in writing the song or album, to entering the studio, to creating the final mixes, bands and labels could document and post it all. This would give all fans the chance to make comments and suggestions about which lyrics reach out to them, which guitar part compliments the bass line most appropriately, or even which mix sounds best to them, all from the artist’s website page. Not only would this draw in more listeners through the process of user recommendations, but it would also tie many of the fans more closely with the music and the band itself. It would make them feel as if they were a part of the album itself, and as a result, they would be more willing to purchase the end product, buy the concert ticket, and acquire the merchandise that would be the physical representation of their relationship with the music.

The next generative that gives value to something that could otherwise be copied is the work’s authenticity. In other words, people will pay for the original. Why else does “vintage” demand a higher premium? Simply because it is the original, or at least more original than anything else. All types of products from paintings by the original artist, the first pressing of a novel or vinyl album, signed sports memorabilia, and even antique Mac computers demand high prices in exchange for a sense of authenticity. When it comes to music, authenticity can mean many different things. In it’s original sense, it signifies a track played by the artist, and not a sound-alike or cover of the original. As Kevin points out, “There are nearly an infinite number of variations of the Grateful Dead jams around; buying an authentic versions from the band itself will ensure you get the one you wanted” (par 17). Here, the original version is obviously the one that will be valued as it is more authentic and true to the creators. But what about in genres where remixes are common and creators don’t necessarily create in the true sense of the word, but maybe rearrange, or interpret original works to create something new? How does a listener decide what is authentic in a case like this? Some may argue that Kanye is original, but others would say that he blatantly rips off the genuine creativity and isn’t a creator, but an imitator instead. On the other end of the spectrum, groups that make a living as tribute bands to other artists are often valued almost as an equal to the original. For example, Dave Matthew’s cover band, the Trippin Billies have made a career based on playing not one of their own songs, but only exact replicas of Dave’s material. And what sets this group apart is their true dedication to Dave himself, as they learn each version of each song that the he plays in each city around the country, and can play the exact version that the Matthews Band played in that city. In this case, the originality is in the music itself, and not necessarily the band playing it. And while authenticity is generally in the eye of the beholder, the value that such authenticity creates is clearly unmatched as people will pay as much for a concert ticket to see the Trippin Billies as they will to see Dave himself.

Continued in Part 2…

Kelly, Kevin. "Better Than Free." The Technium 31 Jan 2008 01 Feb 2008 .