Digital "Restrictions" Management
- February 7th, 2009
- Posted in Art is everywhere . Ethics
- By Webmaster K
- Write comment
rms
I had the good fortune of attending a lecture by Free Software Foundation President and Founder, Richard M. Stallman (rms). Stallman often makes distinctions between free in the monetary sense and free in the civil rights sense. His talk focused on freedom in a civil rights sense. While his focus was on software, the most important parts of his talk for me were his statements on art. Some highlights from his talk:
- Free software is about sharing and corporations don’t want people to share because they are afraid of losing money.
- People can still make money if they share
e.g. MP3s sell better when people are allowed to sample the music
e.g. Monty Python saw a 300-fold increase in sales when they put their work on YouTube for free! - The Four Freedoms (he owes FDR a royalty) foster sharing, co-operation, and community
0. Freedom to run the program however you wish.
1. Freedom to help yourself by viewing the source code and modifying it.
2. Freedom to copy software and distribute the copies to others.
3. The Freedom to publish and distribute modified source code. - Artists are not entitled to payment for their work!
- Copyright law should be changed because copying technology has changed:
hand-copies > printing-press > computer networks - There should be three categories of copyright:
1. Practical works should be completely free (0, 1, 2, & 3) (Software, Recipes, Fonts, Clothing Patterns)
2. What People think should be shareable but not modifiable because it would alter the original intent (0 & 2) (Memoirs, Autobiographies, Scientific Works)
3. Arts & Entertainment should be completely free after 10 years of copyright protection.
Stallman’s main argument is that copyright is bad for individuals, bad for creative people, and bad for society as a whole. I agree with some of the things he says because artists do not always benefit from copyright. For example, in a work-for-hire situation, a writer, a musician, or an illustrator is only guaranteed payment once. The publisher retains all rights and can continue to receive payment indefinitely (if copyright keeps being extended beyond a natural lifetime). Smart publishers will keep talented artists by continuing to pay them and offering them better deals. However, this is more the exception than the rule. For example, I recall my mother mentioning her musician uncle never received payment or credit for music he composed for a certain 1950s television show, although they clearly valued his work because they continued to use it!
One could argue that an artist does not require a corporation in order to publish her work, especially with today’s technology; the artist could self-publish. This argument has two serious flaws. The first flaw is that in a society where money is exchanged for goods such as food, shelter and clothing many artists will opt for a sure method of payment over a theoretical one. The reasoning goes as follows, “I could try publishing this myself but there is no guarantee I will receive any money. This publisher will give me money I need to pay my rent if I do work for them on spec (specification). Therefore, I will give away all my rights to my work just so I can have a place to live.” Some purists might accuse the artist of “selling out“, but I have often found it is easy for someone with a full belly to criticize someone with an empty one. On the flip side, my great-uncle sold-out and was ripped off!
The second flaw is that while lower in cost than it was in the past, self-publication is not free in the monetary sense of the word. I will remind the reader, Stallman differentiates between free in the monetary sense and free in the civil rights sense. Without large amounts of capital to produce a high quality product, it is often difficult for self-published artists to get a start, although not impossible.
Stallman greatly favors freedom from copyright in that it restricts people’s ability to share especially as it relates to software. He also points out the negative impacts of copyright for art. For example Shakespeare, generally acknowledged as one of the great writers of English literature, borrowed many of his ideas from earlier literature such as Beowolf. While hailed as a literary genius in an earlier age, in the modern age, Shakespeare would be accused of making unauthorized copies of earlier works without the permission of the copyright holders. Worse still, he would beguilty of creating “fan-fiction”, an inferior form of fiction based on the work of the officially sanctioned artists. Who is to say that “fan-fiction” is not in some ways aesthetically better than “official fiction”? It is here that Stallman’s greatest points are realized. Corporations borrow regularly from individuals without paying a penny. They see the value of sharing when it benefits them. When individuals attempt to do the same thing, they are criminalized.
In the case of software, the entire Internet is a product of free software development; open standards that anyone can use, scrutinize and improve upon. Corporations all benefit from this sharing as a new vehicle to promote business but they actively discourage anyone attempting to copy their proprietary systems. In the case of Arts & Entertainment, popular shows such as Star Trek benefit from so-called “fan-fiction” when their official writers have run out of ideas. Essentially they copy the works of fans without paying them or getting their permission, which is technically a violation of copyright. In the realm of Painting, what great artist has not copied the work of other great artists (living or dead) at some point in their career?
One area where I strongly disagree with Stallman is the notion that artists are not entitled to payment for their work. He used the analogy of listening to a song on the radio. Should everyone be forced to pay for the privilege of listening to a song they enjoy? Probably not. His idea is that artists should receive donations. Press a button and your favorite artists gets instant payment, similar to PayPal although Stallman opposes PayPal on privacy grounds. This could be done with music on iTunes, however the recording industry acts as a greedy intermediary. The problem with this notion is that again, artists require money for their supplies and equipment. In the case of actors, it is very difficult to create great performances when one is hungry and without shelter. Artists often cannot create art without spending some money. Donations are theoretical payment but a price tag is guaranteed payment (provided people are honest and don’t steal). Perhaps recognizing this flaw in his reasoning, Stallman suggests that the state should provide financial support to artists. Some conservatives might argue that the already exists in the form of welfare.
I like his idea of donations based on a push button model. Imagine walking through a gallery and seeing a painting you think is absolutely breathtaking. You could automatically donate one dollar or more to the living artist or to the gallery based on your enjoyment of that work. Artists would receive direct payment instantly allowing them to continue their work. It still doesn’t get around the fact that artists require initial funds in order to create their work in the first place.
Although Stallman’s talk focused on software, his ideas have many implications for other disciplines and demonstrates once again that Art is everywhere.
I’d be surprised if Stallman said something like “a price tag is guaranteed payment (provided people are honest and don’t steal)”, after all there’s no guarantee that the art will sell at all.
Also, with self-publication, RMS understands that different situations exist for different kinds of art. He has spoken about this and directed people to read Courtney Love’s article from Salon.com.
Musicians, for example, are often lead to believe that if they sign with an RIAA label they’ll be far more likely to become famous and wealthy than if they don’t sign. So many musicians believe the choice before them is whether to sign or not. I’d say that that is not the choice at all. Most artists (signed or unsigned) never become famous or wealthy. Most signed artists go on to carry a huge debt they must repay to their RIAA label and lose creative control to executives at their label.
So the real choice for a musician concerns how much freedom they want to share with their audience by licensing their work. If a musician retains their copyrights (to their songs and recorded performances) instead of signing with a label (which includes turning copyrights over to the label), and then licenses those recordings to everyone under terms that allow at least non-commercial & verbatim sharing, the musician stands to gain the most benefit. Fame and riches are (as always) unlikely. But the musician can avoid label debt, maximize control over their artistic development, and license to a non-exclusive distributor like Magnatune.org. Magnatune pays the artist half of the sale price for every track sold (a far better deal than most artists get with any RIAA label).
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear.
I wasn’t suggesting that Stallman said “Donations are theoretical payment but a price tag is guaranteed payment (provided people are honest and don’t steal)”. That is actually my take on things. I will never begrudge an artist the right to make money from his work because I have lived that struggle.
As someone who has sold visual art and made some attempt to make a living off of it, I have a strong opinion about artists receiving payment for their work. It is a wonderful thing for artists to share their work with the world. Unfortunately, we live in a materialistic society where access to cash determines our ability to access essential items like food and shelter. In the case of visual artists, cash also determines our access to the materials we use to make our visual art. My bias is that artists whether they are musicians, writers, painters, or web designers should get paid for their work unless they choose not to ask for payment. To say otherwise is to doom artists to work at some dead-end job unrelated to their true passion (I’ve been there and I’ve done that).
An artist selling his work through a third party generally has to outlay smaller sums of cash than an artist who is self-published. For example, printing a book could cost a writer hundreds of thousands of dollars versus having the publisher take that risk. The same could be true of musicians who self-publish CDs.
Regardless of whether the artist takes the risk or a third party takes the risk, there is never a guarantee that the art will sell. What I am trying to say is that an artist who establishes a price for her work is more likely to receive payment than an artist who says “pay me if you feel like it.” In my own experiences as an artist, I have seen how raising the price actually increases sales! In a materialistic society, people equate quality with price. Of course there are limits; if the price is too high that can lower sales. Finding the ideal price is part of the trick of selling anything. It is not always true that the highest priced item is the best but the perception is there.
While Stallman uses the example of Monty Python when speaking about sharing art, this is not quite correct. Monty Python isn’t giving away DVDs for free on YouTube, just individual skits. It would take someone a long time to collect all that material together as a collection of DVDs. YouTube is being used to give people a taste of what they would get by purchasing the collection. In visual arts this would be equivalent to displaying work in a gallery so that people will have enough interest to commission works from the artist.
I am sure that RMS doesn’t want artists to starve and be without shelter. Artists require a home and food and means to have a decent and meaningful life. Just like every other person, for example somebody picking up trash in Chile.
The question how we can provide every person with a quality of life is not necessarily related to the question if artists are entitled to payment for use of their work. It could be, this is the current model. The point is exactly that the current model doesn’t work very well. It doesn’t pay the artists, and it incurs a high cost on society.
Why do artists sell their work in the first place?
My reason to sell art is to make money so that I can have a meaningful quality of life. Some of my art I give away for free. Ultimately, it is my choice whether to sell my art or give it away.
The current model may not pay the artist 100% of the profit but a small percentage for an artist is still better than 0% from file-sharing.
Book publishers may take 90% of the profit, art galleries 70% and the recording industry may be equally high. That said, as a working artist, I prefer receiving some payment to no payment. That is the deal the artist makes with the publisher.
I agree with Stallman that artists are often exploited by publishers. Self-publication is the way to go long-term but the cost of distribution and advertising is still quite high. The sticking point for me, is the idea that artists are not entitled to payment for their work. If I set a price for my work and have told you I am selling this, you are not helping me by sharing it for free.
“The current model may not pay the artist 100% of the profit but a small percentage for an artist is still better than 0% from file-sharing.”
Real life experience and studies have shown that large part of people are willing to pay for content, when paying is voluntary. Perhaps surprisingly, you indicate many times in your comments that you are not aware of this.
It costs money to make art.
Musicians spend money on instruments, studio time, and production. Writers spend money on research to create more realistic stories. Visual Artists spend money on their materials.
Some artists have business licenses and that costs money as well. Artists also file income taxes.
If someone enjoys art and wants people to continue making art, there should be no question or argument over whether artists should be paid for their work. Just pay.
When you take for free a work of art that costs someone else hundreds or even thousands of dollars to make, that is not “file-sharing”.
That is theft.
P.S.
I have had the experience of giving my work away for free or for very little money. The people who took my work always said, “I will send more customers your way”. Several years later, I am still waiting. I charge for my work because based on my own real-world experience people don’t pay unless there is a price tag.