Bits, Bands and Books

From the New York Times, Princeton economist Paul Krugman:

So much, then, for the digital revolution? Not so fast. The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march.

In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction: that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

For example, she described how some software companies gave their product away but earned fees for installation and servicing. But her most compelling illustration of how you can make money by giving stuff away was that of the Grateful Dead, who encouraged people to tape live performances because “enough of the people who copy and listen to Grateful Dead tapes end up paying for hats, T-shirts and performance tickets. In the new era, the ancillary market is the market.”

Indeed, it turns out that the Dead were business pioneers. Rolling Stone recently published an article titled “Rock’s New Economy: Making Money When CDs Don’t Sell.” Downloads are steadily undermining record sales — but today’s rock bands, the magazine reports, are finding other sources of income. Even if record sales are modest, bands can convert airplay and YouTube views into financial success indirectly, making money through “publishing, touring, merchandising and licensing.”

More here.

This has all been brewing for a while now, and, as Krugman asserts, it will continue to brew until new economic models for the distribution of creative work in the digital era become both workable and widespread. And I'm really happy about it. My anarchist within is particularly excited about the looming end of the recorded music industry: it only existed in the first place because of the capital needed to be a player; now that anybody with a computer can mimic the multi-million dollar studios of the 1970s, and distribution is as easy as logging onto the internet, the only thing keeping the record labels alive are the devilish deals punishing violators of "intellectual property rights" cut with the federal government in defiance of all market logic. I can't see this Mafia-like situation continuing indefinitely. Sometime soon fans and artists alike will be free from the shackles of idiot record executives deciding that we need to listen to ever more shit.

Indeed, "intellectual property rights" will itself soon be a thing of the past, at least as far as artistic and literary work is concerned--film and television will be the next to go down, or maybe books, as Krugman goes on to suggest in his essay. And that's a good thing for many reasons, again for artists and fans alike. No longer will the creative class necessarily humiliate itself so that a few economically privileged guys in suits who don't know the first thing about art or music or literature can choose who to promote and distribute. No longer will audiences have to choke down shit because that's all that's on the menu. Soon, this will all be an issue between artist and audience. No blood-sucking middlemen. Freedom.

On the other hand, as an actor, writer, and song writer, I'm also scared. These new economic models do not yet exist. And the current model is being used as a springboard toward economic experimentation--artists who have fought through the present system to fame and acclaim are in the best position to market directly to the audiences that the establishment helped them build. What does this all mean to a guy laboring in total obscurity such as myself?

Like I said, it'll be a while before TV and film go the way of music, if only because narrative video requires far more collaboration and capital than does music. I mean, there are some fantastic examples of what a few people can pull off on relatively cheap budgets, like the Star Trek fan shows, but is their approach economically viable in the long run? In the end, like all businessmen, artists have to figure out how to make money with their product, if only so they can pay the rent while they continue to make the art they love.

In the meantime, however, I'm certain the creative class will do what they've always done, whether they're making money with their work or not: they'll keep on creating. After all, that's what they do.

It's what I do, anyway.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$