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 .