Make Me Pay For It

Photo by larimdaME

I produce content and I want to get paid. This is fair. I have a right to put food in my mouth by creating something people will pay for. Also fair. I have a right to control every aspect of my content insofar as the impact it has on society at large. Now I'm slipping. I have elected to make a contribution to said society but I want to make absolutely certain that it will only be used under my own terms. Why didn't I get a regular job and suffer with everyone else?

In these chapters Lawrence Lessig sorts through an awful lot of controversial subject matter pretty rapidly, and while I agree in principle with a lot of what he says, I still feel that he is leaving out an important aspect of piracy: why should I pay for something I can get free? (Maybe he touches on this in the other chapters, granted)

It's wonderful that you write a book, or record an album, or make a movie, or produce a graphic novel. For better or worse you have woven another stitch into the fabric of our culture. That people care to check it out must be a rewarding feeling. That they'll even pay for it makes you doubly lucky.

As an artist or media manipulator of any ilk, you are a proverbial drop in a vast ocean. That you cause a ripple is not enough, though. If I want to swim in the wave pool of your achievement, I'd better be ready to pay for the pleasure of it. Anything less is asking you to work for free. You're not having it. Rewarding feelings don't pay the bills.

Okay, again, all fair. But why should we swim in your wave pool when the guy beside you isn't charging? Hey, he might even be asking for a contribution, but he's content to see people enjoy the water. I know your name, and I know his name. But I'm going to remember him, because he threw the good pool party where more people came and no one pissed in the pool. The next time he throws a pool party, I'd even pay to get in. Your pools are the same size but his less shade over it.

Now I'm going to put the metaphor to bed and look at an important point Lessig brings up in Chapter 5.

If we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the permission of a property owner. That is exactly what “property” means.

The part that's missing in the case of the internet and piracy issues is that the property system we have lacks any balance with the technologies at play. It's a case of old school v. new school, and neither side is sure of the rules, but the new school, being young, can afford more risks.

If I'm a new artist who came of age as the internet began to expand into the average household, then the old ways seem like a thing of the past. If I've been around longer than 10 years and don't know how to adapt to the new reality, of course I'm going to get defensive. And it's going to look like greed.

Why? It's not greed - an artist has a right to earn. It's just that now that people are giving it away for free, well, damn it, there's competition! That’s the problem. It's not the medium; it's the ability to adapt. Maybe Metallica have more to lose in terms of assets after 25 years in the recording industry than the Arcade Fire. But what they really stand to lose is their time-honoured, previously un-tampered-with equation for money making.

Young fans finding out about old Metallica aren't going to generate cash anymore, whereas Arcade Fire will never know another way besides giving it away and letting talent and perseverance on their part fill the venues and sell out the merch booth. They can’t rest on their laurels because their laurels have yet to be clearly identified. This is a complete lack of balance. It may be why it is seemingly so difficult to reconcile technology and profitability in terms of distribution.