« Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory | Main | China fact of the day »
Kottke interview of Cory Doctorow
Joel Turnipseed blogging at Kottke asks, why give away books for free? Cory responds:
...we live in a century in which copying is only going to get easier. It's the 21st century, there's not going to be a year in which it's harder to copy than this year; there's not going to be a day in which it's harder to copy than this day....And so, if your business model and your aesthetic effect in your literature and your work is intended not to be copied, you're fundamentally not making art for the 21st century. It might be quaint, it might be interesting, but it's not particularly contemporary to produce art that demands these constraints from a bygone era....
So that's the artistic reason. Finally, there's the ethical reason. And the ethical reason is that the alternative is that we chide, criminalize, sue, damn our readers for doing what readers have always done, which is sharing books they love—only now they're doing it electronically. You know, there's no solution that arises from telling people to stop using computers in the way that computers were intended to be used. They're copying machines. So telling the audience for art, telling 70 million American file-sharers that they're all crooks, and none of them have the right to due process, none of them have the right to privacy, we need to wire-tap all of them, we need to shut down their network connections without notice in order to preserve the anti-copying business model: that's a deeply unethical position. It puts us in a world in which we are criminalizing average people for participating in their culture.
The economics have yet to be worked out but I think Cory has got the aesthetics and the ethics right. Lots more of interest.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on November 5, 2007 at 07:10 AM in The Arts | Permalink
Comments
A minor correction, the interviewer is actually Joel Turnipseed, who is one of the substitute curators for kottke.org while Jason takes some holidays.
Posted by: mort at Nov 5, 2007 8:30:38 AM
Thanks, I have corrected.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Nov 5, 2007 8:38:22 AM
My favorite point that Cory's made elsewhere is that the current economics of publishing only return 10
cents on the dollar to the creator. It's hard to imagine how any alternative scheme could be worse.
Let's see, cut the revenues 70%, net half, and ... increase your take 50% with 5x the marginal return
on each additional dollar of revenue.
Posted by: mkl at Nov 5, 2007 9:36:57 AM
The problem which most people point when discussing such pricing schemes is that non-established writers will find it much harder to break in, and make a living out of creating art. I think that's a cop-out. We already have high barriers to entry in arts: gatekeepers in the form of readers, agents, gallery owners, etc. who choose what gets published or displayed. While there is a lot of good things to be said about some of their qualifications and skills, there shouldn't be any reason somebody can't make a big break by giving art out for free thus giving the choice to the art connoisseur.
Many pro photographers shooting for established stock photography agencies feel the pressure of micro-stock agencies - ie. arguably lower-quality photos sold for a fraction of what Corbis et al. charge. Economies of scale are much easier with digital files than just a few years ago when stock agencies only accepted transparencies. Fine art photographers are not feeling the price pressure as much, since galleries, shortage of great printers (persons, not machines), and a requirement for a photographer with a Name by collectors keep the barriers to entry high. But if somebody is not willing to pay for your photography (or writing or music), it's probably not very good to begin with.
Mr Doctorow's, Trent Reznor's and Radiohead's example was an impetus for me to choose a related pricing scheme for my travel photography prints - customers pay the price of printing and p&h, and anything above that is optional. I'm also planning to release my upcoming first novel under a Creative Commons license - releasing my (unproduced) screenplay is another matter.
I have no grand illusions about my craft, but I am positive it is just a matter of time when a nobody becomes somebody by releasing art under less restrictive terms. Mr Doctorow is right in saying that we should embrace the opportunities of new technology, and is rightfully applauded for being a pioneer, facing the naysayers.
Posted by: Harri Jahkola at Nov 5, 2007 1:48:14 PM
Baen is giving sci-fi books away for free on their Baen Free library site - in multiple formats such as .rtf, palm and mobipoicket.
They have a selection of various authors and typically only put on the first or first and second book in a series. If the reader likes it, he can go buy later books in the series and it gives you a no-cost (aside from time spent) opportunity to try authors you might not otherwise read.
Its a smart answer to the copying issue and seems to enhance sales of the authors in question and their backlists of books.
Posted by: ak47pundit at Nov 5, 2007 2:27:53 PM
"The economics have yet to be worked out but I think Cory has got the aesthetics and the ethics right."
The Doctrow Business Plan:
1. Sounds good.
2. Feels good.
3. ????
4. Profit!!!!
Posted by: dam at Nov 5, 2007 4:23:18 PM
I'm concerned about the ethics here. The quoted passage seems to imply that if everybody does something, or at least great numbers of people, then it's somehow wrong to prohibit or penalize or even stigmatize this conduct. But there have been times and places when it was widely acceptable to hold blacks in slavery, or later to deprive them of many fundamental rights accorded to white people. In other times and places it was widely accepted to slaughter Jews, discriminate against gays, lord it over Third World peoples and so forth. Is it unethical to chastise or prohibit this behavior? The implication is that If "everyone" covets my car or my computer or my living room sofa and has the means to seize these items, they are not only entitled, but laws (or individuals) standing in their way are immoral. I'm no philosopher but this doesn't seem a coherent ethical scheme to me. As to the question at hand, i have no problem with authors giving away their books. I'm just doubtful it should be mandatory.
Posted by: Daniel Akst at Nov 5, 2007 4:46:34 PM
Daniel, when someone takes your car, you no longer have it. When someone copies your book, you still have it.
All discussions of "property rights" in information NEED to begin with this point: it is not governed by scarcity.
Maybe despite that, some form of intellectual property is still desirable. But the implementation of such needs to be undertaken with the knowledge that no matter how hard you try, you cannot make information scarce.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Nov 5, 2007 5:49:42 PM
Does this thinking apply to textbook publishing, which serves established markets? Probably not, but I'd be curious if anyone thinks otherwise.
Posted by: DA at Nov 5, 2007 7:04:36 PM
Does this mean inflation is a good thing ?
If the government prints another dollar, I still have a dollar.
But the value of the dollar has dropped.
Posted by: azer at Nov 5, 2007 7:20:08 PM
In the past most of the content was physical goods (e.g., books). If I buy a book and then sell it to another (possibly for nothing) then I no longer have ready access to that book. The author/publisher still only has one copy in circulation that can be readily accessed. The good that is being taken away by copying is the ability of the "publisher" to add another simultaneously active copy of the product into the population.
I'll skip the detail free-market description but following the (required/expected) free-art position to completion one question that needs to be asked is whether art or art's sake is really desired (regardless of quality). Proponents of free (speech and beer) art apparently feel this way and thus should support a portion of their (increased) taxes (since we are funding NEW endeavors) being taken and paid out to artists for ALL works produced.
Ultimately any product takes capital (labor, land, inputs) to create and without some means to pay for that capital production cannot continue. Who better than the capitalist who fronts the capital and takes the risk to decide the conditions that are placed upon their product?
Ultimately the concept of "property rights" should be defined by the producer exclusively; with the limited "fair-use" and similar exceptions/clarifications that effectively serve to distinguish the created property from allowed and disallowed derivative works. Beyond that the only other facility that the government should provide is an impartial forum (i.e., civil court) for two parties to resolve their disputes.
Is the current business model of the RIAA smart? Who cares! One thing it is not is immoral. Morality is often just a defense when no other rational defense is available and people (or animals) are involved.
Aesthetically: this is where a market solutions fails because the goal is maximum distribution (i.e. a desire to capture those whose marginal value of the product is equals to their acquisition cost). The question here is whether limited price discrimination is fair and effective (otherwise art becomes either charity - including pay what you want - or state-funded work). I do not discount this (and the implication that producing art creates value for the state) but to fault and call individuals and companies amoral (especially in the US) for opting to discard (or at least ignore) the aesthetic implications is judgmental.
There are many different kinds of artists (early labor, late art; all art all the time; one and done artist). Our society has the capability (through capitalism, charity and education) to support these various kinds of artists; a noble and moral situation.
Posted by: David Johnston at Nov 5, 2007 8:12:12 PM
Cory's math and ethics work if the goods are the files. While files are easy to copy, they are also easy to sell. There are plenty of other valuable things that can be offered for sale on their own or as part of the deal. For example, while Radiohead was making headlines with its donationware, Jimmy Eat World was offering people who preordered their latest album from iTunes preferential purchasing of concert tickets. 5 years from now, expect the latter approach to be the music industry's preferred approach.
With software, companies are moving to integrated web based subscription services for revenue streams, with software as (very low) loss-leader. With books, someone really brilliant might come up with a way for authors to offer digitally signed copies to premium buyers. Tyler's experiment with personalized podcasts was beyond brilliant. Writing a popular book could easily generate lots of $100ish billable hours doing this kind of thing. I've experimented a little bit in the past with customized versions of software, and I think that could work if my business were really focussed on it. But I prefer making new things rather than spending time doing software signing, and people still buy my new stuff.
"dam" has Cory's mindset nailed above. While Cory offers easy observations about the obvious, he doesn't have much to offer besides regurgitated infocommie pablum.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings at Nov 5, 2007 8:48:24 PM
Ultimately the concept of "property rights" should be defined by the producer exclusively
The public bears the expense of maintaining the venue in which the producer's rights are enforced. Allowing the producer arbitrary freedom in defining their rights runs the risk of the producer claiming rights which are not worth the cost to the public of enforcing.
Posted by: Cyrus at Nov 5, 2007 9:16:38 PM
The direction I expect the music industry to take is to improve the quality of their packaging. Shakespeare can be found in any lending library, and the market is so flooded with used copies that the cost of acquiring one is essentially the cost of shipping. Yet Shakespeare never goes out of print, because there always exists a market of buyers who want a nice copy on their shelf.
DVD publishers know this. Book publishers know this. Music publishers haven't really caught on to the fact the music is readily available, and what they have left is a visual/tactile product, which is still quite marketable, if only they would make it so.
Posted by: Cyrus at Nov 5, 2007 9:25:59 PM
Cyrus: I thought that the parties that availed themselves of the courts (or arbitration) paid for those venues (i.e., court costs and legal fees being covered by the losing party in a lawsuit). Assuming that (or making it so) then the real question is whether the producer wishes to spend the money to enforce the rights they have established for themselves (and risk being guilty of overstepping the bounds that society has placed on the derivative works mentioned).
The big reason why the situation is so messy is that the violators are numerous and small-pocketed and the possibility of the producer to actual recover damages is limited. The enablers thus are becoming the targets and it is definitely a gray area whether a medium should be responsible for the content it carries. This too is being played out in civil courts as well as by innovative producers and channels working to do a four-party barter where "sharers" provide their eyeballs to advertisers via the channels who then distribute part of their advertisement revenue to the producers whose products are appearing on the channel's sites.
This outcome and the underlying ability of our courts and markets to come to this outcome without government mandate is the strength of America. It may take time and may not be painless but it doesn't take extraordinary time or money from the government.
Posted by: David Johnston at Nov 5, 2007 10:18:34 PM
For similar reasons, I give away my nature photography images for free for personal use (full-sized images).
Posted by: Matthew C. at Nov 6, 2007 7:02:46 AM
David Johnston: Actual damages? If that's all you're interested in, I think that most online filesharers would be happy to pay the actual costs of the content industry. It's the disproportionate statutory damages where things get weird.
Posted by: billb at Nov 6, 2007 10:03:21 AM
I think Corey is absolutely correct. In today’s society, copying and file-sharing are becoming part of our culture. It’s much easier to copy information from a paper off the Internet than to actually write it, cheaper to share music files than to buy the actual CD, or copying DVDs rather than paying to the movie. Copyrights and patents can only do so much. You cannot catch everyone that breaks the law. Although it is unethical, the convenience outweighs integrity, which is a disgrace to our society. Back to the idea of giving books away for free, it would be much easier as well as convenient for lazy Americans to access the free book online rather than travel to a book store to obtain the giveaway. On a positive note, if the author was trying to circulate his or her work available to a mass amount of people, the Internet is the answer.
Posted by: Shannon2026 at Nov 6, 2007 1:41:44 PM
billb: The only way for "disproportionate statutory damages" to become such is A) the duly elected legislature passes laws to that effect and B) the jury (or courts) find that indeed those damages are warranted as a deterrent toward further unlawful conduct. Additionally, those damages are effectively an alternative to criminal charges and are often avoid by all but a minority of offenders via settlements.
Posted by: David Johnston at Nov 6, 2007 2:59:18 PM
David Johnston: 1) I don't doubt your first point, but that doesn't make the level of statutory damages right. 2) the jury doesn't have to find them warranted. If the jury finds infringement, and the elements for statutory damages are present, then there is a minimum of $750/infringement. That's a lot for a song that one could have been bought from iTMS for ~$1 and certainly cost the recording industry much less (in marginal costs) to produce. And, I think it's pretty clear that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to put someone in jail for any length of time for sharing the latest pop music track.
P.S. You're first point was quite surprising to me in all honesty. Since when has "It's the law!" had any moral authority? Cory's argument is a moral one not a legal one, and so was my first response to you.
Posted by: billb at Nov 6, 2007 10:12:01 PM
ah, crap: s/You're/Your/ in that postscript.
Posted by: billb at Nov 7, 2007 12:18:22 AM
Noah Yetter: The proper justification for protecting intellectual property rights (which exist even without legal protection) is moral, not economic; therefore, the question of scarcity is irrelevant.
Posted by: Kurt M. Weber at Nov 7, 2007 4:35:12 PM
David,
Allowing arbitrary intellectual property rights on the basis of freedom of contract, as you seem to be arguing, for most types of media provides insufficient protection to cultural producers: contract only applies between those one establishes a contractual relationship with, while to be effective, IP law needs to bind everyone. Sooner or later, a party not bound by contract will access the intellectual property. One needs law, as opposed to contract, to forbid this party from reproducing and distributing the intellectual property.
But if, in order to function, restrictions on the use of IP must apply to the public, and not just those members of it that the producer has contracted with, then if, in submitting themselves to law, the public also defines limits to the IP rights they recognize, there is no ethical violation.
Posted by: Robert at Nov 7, 2007 10:24:50 PM
bobb: I would say that law is ALWAYS a "moral" authority. I believe you would agree that the argument is that the imposition of morals upon the public THROUGH LAW is not always desired - especially as we do not always agree on what in fact IS moral/amoral.
bobb/Robert: [Robert]"...if, in submitting themselves to law, the public also defines limits to the IP rights they recognize, there is not ethical violation." There morals and ethics that exist outside of codified law, and sometimes are in conflict with laws. Your statement implies that should the public decide to allow unrestricted reproduction and distribution of "art" their decision would be ethical. While it may be impossible to enforce restrictions that the public does not agree with the alternative for the producer is to stop producing. Since I don't consider the creation of art to be a negative on our society and any policy that discourages its creation seems to be a bad policy.
Robert: I guess what I am saying is that LAW needs to separate the establishment of owners and the right of the owner to establish how their DIRECT work/product may be used/distributed from the actual declaration of those rights (i.e., the CONTRACT). Anyone who could reproduce or distribute the work would implicitly be party to the owner's contract. Our current system recognizes this by alerting consumers with the presence of the copyright notice. Commonly established conventions, enshrined in IP law, are claimed by the owner by that does not (see the establishment of the copyleft) prevent the owner from establishing more or less broad rights (albeit, those rights are more prone to legal arbitration).
The government and society have established that stealing is illegal; so the question becomes should producers base their business models on the assumption that people will NOT commit crimes (the status-quo) OR should business alter their models to remove the possibility of a crime being committed (i.e., accept and allow unlimited reproduction and distribution). Cory's use of ethics is an attention-grabber that blames the victim (the producer and their distributer - RIAA/MPAA) and defends the criminal (Joe Smith). It appeals to people because of the desire to side with individuals against business or government.
Posted by: David Johnston at Nov 8, 2007 10:12:41 AM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 9:54:10 PM
