Blaise Alleyne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (334) comment rss

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Great work!

    Hey Adam, thanks for the link! I've been an associate member of the FSF for the past two years, big supporter of free software and free culture. I focused on free as in price here, but I intentionally left the title and conclusion ambiguous. I think a free-as-in-freedom approach to art is one of the best ways to add value... trying to put that into practice with my own music, but I'm still in the early stages.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    Re: To simplify

    "In the case of music, I pay $0 for the song, which I value (the song which I "connect" with and "embrace") because it is not scarce as a result of easy means of distribution and reproduction. Yet in order to support the artist, I pay $10 for a tote bag, autograph or T-shirt, which I value not nearly as much as the song, because they are scarce?"


    Well, no one's saying you can't pay for the song, but it's that (a) the digital audio files are going to be available for free, or (b) you're going to pay for associated scarcities involved with getting the songs/files.

    So, you might first encounter the music through a free download or streaming service, or by getting it off a friend. Then, you might end up paying for a CD (a physical container and distribution mechanism for the songs), or paying to be part of a fan club that gives you immediate access to a ton of digital audio files. Or all of the examples that SomeGuy mentioned of paying for the music. And, sure, you might not buy the album you've just downloaded, but you might buy the next one (or the other ones). Or you might not join a fan club right away, but after you've downloaded the music, enjoyed it, attended a concert, etc...

    Merchandise (e.g. tote bags, t-shirts) is just one category of scarce goods. "Scarce goods" also refers to all of the other scarcities you could give people a reason to buy into that may be much more directly connected with the music. (Again, see SomeGuy's examples.)

    No one's saying "don't sell music." I'm just explaining why you don't need to rely on selling digital audio files (since that's risky business).

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 11:48am

    Re: Music is a Shared Language

    "The intrinsic element of music is the idea that it is a form of shared communication. Music is another form of language that speaks in notes rather than letters...

    It's not so much the music that has value but the message contained. Just like I can add value to my language by turning the words I use into a book, I can add value to music by collecting the musical ideas into a song..."


    Well, I'd say that languages, like English or music, are valuable because you can use them to express an idea or emotion. But yeah, I agree that the real value from a music fan perspective comes from some other connection with the music.

    And the music-as-language element is yet another ambiguity with the word music: language, composition, performance, recording, digital audio file... so many different scarcities and abundances in each of the layers.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You have to stand back and think for it for a second. If something has no price, over time, people will have less sense of value on the product. It is "infinitely replacable", free, and thus not specifically valuable in itself. Losing it would cause you no pain, because you would be able to replace it for nothing. Even if you are a true fan of the music, being able to get it at any time for nothing would diminish your mental value for the object."


    Your viewing such a narrow slice of "music." That digital audio files are "infinitely replaceable" doesn't mean that no one is paying money for music, they're just paying for scarce offerings associated with music rather than the abundant ones. Your argument about price dragging the value down only seems remotely plausible if you disconnect digital audio files from the rest of the music ecosystem.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "That to me is the common Techdirt mistake. Replication in and of itself doesn't change the rarity of the song, only of copies. All the duplication in the world won't create a single extra Frank Zappa song (RIP Frankie!). His songs are rare because there won't be any more of them ever. You an duplicate them until you are blue in the face, but you haven't made the music any less rare."


    Please, point me to an example of that mistake. I went through extra pains here to make a distinction between the recordings and the music. Having an "infinite good" is precisely about replication -- not creation. It's marginal cost we're talking about. Reproduction. Copying. Not creating new stuff -- that's a huge scarcity because composition takes time and talent -- and we've highlighted examples of artists monetizing it.

    Saying that you can distribute and reproduce a musical recording ad infinitum (or "until you are blue in the face") doesn't mean that anyone is saying that the musical composition isn't rare.

    "While his fans enjoy the stuff, for the most part NIN / Reznor music isn't scoring all that well, not charting, not getting anywhere near the radio airplay, and generally isn't as "rare" and valuable."


    This comment is a bit of a sidenote, but... why is radio airplay is the metric of success for an artist who's turned to the Internet as his primary medium?

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 05:37am

    Re:

    "Oh Blaise, the boss will be so glad that you had the extra cup of koolaid."


    I suppose that's your way of making the careful and astute observation that I happen to agree with Mike about this.

    "Value and price are not directly related, but they are connected in an elastic sort of a way. If price goes way up, it naturally will pull value up with it (trailing indicator). In the same manner, if value is lost, price is dragged down as a result. With the price at zero, the elastic is taut, pulling very hard at the value of music in people's minds.

    You cannot maintain both high value and no price for very long. They are almost entirely mutually exclusive."


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're suggesting that without a price associated to music, the corresponding value of music will be pulled down towards nothing as well. Thing is, it's only the digital audio files and infinite goods that have a price pressure of zero. There's lots of price tags on other things. So, to say it's a case of high value and no price is taking a very narrow view of the landscape. Music is more than digital audio files.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 03:01pm

    Re: You kwow what? you're right.

    1. Even if there was no way to make money, artists never have a desire to share what they create, right? Do you really believe creation is something inward-looking, reclusive, and private? I suspect you're not actually an artist, or you're not actually hording and hiding all of your creations.

    2. Read the last paragraph again. No one is suggesting artists should work for free or rely on a tip jar. There are plenty of business models that use zero to an artists advantage, that help them to make more money by giving away abundant goods for free. See a sister post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid.

    3. Everything on Techdirt is essentially in the public domain, available at no cost. How much more free do you want it to be? Techdirt practices what it preaches.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 02:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: *Applause*

    "While Techdirt will argue this point across all forms of content and I agree with most of it, I'm significantly less convinced that this ideology works quite as well with other forms besides music."


    I'd suggest that we have a better idea of how the theory applies to music than it does to videogames, because digital recordings hit that infinite good status at least a decade ago. As noted on the Music Club page: "We regularly use the music industry as a great example of a "leading indicator" industry that is dealing with the issues we talk about way before many other industries will do so."

    I believe there scarcities in every space, but it'll take some time to figure out which ones people will pay for, and how to structure a successful business model. The music industry is a great example because its ahead of the curve in terms of being forced to deal with these issues.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 02:43pm

    Re:

    Hey, thanks for those examples, very cool!

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 02:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Some of those "proven" business models have not succeeded for some people. Perhaps "proven" is not the right word to use."


    Well, I did say being proven (suggesting an on-going process), and I ended the post by highlighting the need to experiment. It is new territory and there's lots to learn, but there's some patterns we can see that have been working (see: scarcity/abundance).

    "In any case, I'm responding to your statement "Getting hung up on 'devaluation' is a distraction ..." -- that's a fairly odd way to put it. "Hang-ups," as if we're just too uptight or something, and all we need to do is drop some acid and mellow out at Berkeley, and stop being so SQUARE, man, worrying about those bills. They're just paper, man."


    You should see some of the folk musicians I've been talking to who thing that a print dialogue box style TPM will stop file sharing.

    There are artists out there who see a $0 price tag as an enormous stumbling block to any kind of business model involving free... yet the alternative of turning to artificial scarcity is fragile ground. I'd call that a hangup and a distraction -- they can't see anything else but a giant zero.

    I'm not really sure where you get the "stop worrying about those bills" mentality from. It's amazing. If I lead with the economics, I'm cold and insensitive and don't give a damn about musicians. If I lead by addressing artists, I'm accused of being a hippie.

    I think you're hung up on the word hangup -- stop being so square. ;)

    "If you would like to have people get interested in your ideas, telling them that their concerns are a hangup, to be dismissed, is not the approach that will win you tons of converts. How about saying, "Here's how you get paid: ..."?"


    Thanks for the feedback. I see you still haven't clicked through any of the links. I thought I focused on that in the last paragraph and providing lots of examples and starting points for thinking about the business model side of things more deeply, but this post was focused on the difference between price and value. As I said, a lot of songwriters hear the business/economics side and tune it out if it involves a $0 price tag ("but my music has value!"). This post was an attempt to break down that barrier, so we can get back to economics / business part in more detail.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 01:10pm

    Re:

    As far as I am concerned, anything purporting to be a business model which fails to address "yes, and how do I get the bills paid?" factor is not actually a business model.


    I suppose you didn't click through any of the links to the theory behind new business models, or any of the dozen links I included towards the end with examples of people putting it into practice.

    1. I'd be skeptical of a business model that doesn't pay the bills too, but I'm talking about models that are continually being proven.

    2. Even if you want to deny everything I've said about new business models, you're still left with an old business model that's failing. How do you suggest paying the bills?

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 01:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: *Applause*

    It might be helpful to have some of the main posts highlighted though. I find the article tags are useful when searching for recent examples. The approaching infinity series is great for the key economic points, but there might be some key music/artist posts worth highlighting in some shape or form for newcomers.

  • On the post: Even The Open Source Community Gets Overly Restrictive At Times

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2009 @ 10:28pm

    It's about user freedom, not developer control

    The purpose of the GPL isn't to facilitate software development, but to ensure user freedom. The only "restrictions" on the license are against restricting freedom. Though, the open source approach tends to focus more on developers rather than users.

    Ultimately, though, the GPL is just a tool to combat restrictive copyright (like Pitabred points out). Sometimes, it's not the "best" tool (if the goal is to facilitate software development) and other licenses make more sense.

    But... you also end up with different software. With permissive licensing, you get things like Android -- "Open Core" software, where the end product is actually tied up with proprietary code. (Why should you have to jailbreak an "open source" phone?) With the GPL, generally speaking, you know what your getting is entirely available for you to build on.

    I think the freeloader argument is a bit misleading. It might be why some people turn to the GPL, but it's not the reason the Free Software Foundation publishes the GPL.

    The GPL is not about making sure that developers contribute back code (i.e. about stopping developer freeloaders) -- that's looking at a free software license from an open source perspective. The GPL is about making sure that developers don't restrict users' freedom to use, share and modify the software.

    If developers are using the GPL to "coerce people into being 'good' members of the community," that's a silly case of worrying about freeloaders. But the GPL uses copyleft not to coerce developers into being good community members, but to keep software free for users.

    Still, sometimes more permissive licensing makes sense (hence LGPL as a "weak copyleft," and other non-copyleft non-FSF licensing options).

  • On the post: Canadian Copyright Levy Group Wants New iPod Tax… But It's Not Really For The Artists

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2009 @ 11:41pm

    Re: Re: common cents

    "But that means that the music industry hasn't been able to sue anyone in Canada. The courts have rules that because of the levy, people are already paying for the copying, so the courts have squashed any lawsuits against copiers."


    But it's a really weak bandaid solution. If Canadians are already paying for the copying... then why would we need to pay for it again with a digital audio player levy? What about copying on laptop hard drives? When are they going to target other devices, and what's the reason or rationale for which devices get taxed and which don't (aside from simply "whichever devices they can get away with taxing...")?

    The levy is not an appropriate substitute for user rights.

  • On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 04 Sep, 2009 @ 11:08pm

    Re: That's why I use the GFDL

    For what it's worth, CC BY-SA is most similar to the GFDL.

  • On the post: Toronto Copyright Townhall: Canadian Record Industry Mobilizes In Panic, Everyone Loses Out

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2009 @ 09:58am

    Re: royalties

    "In other words, from the music industry perspective a win-win."


    heh, except one record industry lawyer labeled the levy advocates as folks who are "expecting that the government will do nothing," and trading dollars for dimes. The record industry folks may want the levies, but that's still not enough (hence the CRIA fighting a digital audio player levy that could have legalized file sharing). They want levies and lawsuits.

  • On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2009 @ 09:43am

    Re: Re:

    The CC PD license isn't actually for releasing stuff into the public domain, it's only for asserting that something is already in the public domain. CC0 is the tool for releasing a work into the public domain.

  • On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2009 @ 09:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Free Creative Commons License Can Show What's Possible Without Copyright In The Way

    "I think what he is saying is that wikipedia wouldn't be possible with the restrictions that the default copyright grants, so it uses licenses to waive those restrictions instead."


    Yes, thank you. I mean, given the current copyright defaults, something like Wikipedia wouldn't be possible without free licenses that reduce the transaction costs for large scale collaborative work like that.

    If there were no copyright law (or rather, a more reasonable law), then you wouldn't really need free licenses.

    Wikipedia isn't dependent on copyright restrictions, rather on licenses that remove those restrictions.

  • On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2009 @ 09:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CC is like DRM

    ""I am actively enforcing the fullest extent of my rights as the copyright holder that the law allows me to, except under these very narrowly defined circumstances."


    Yes, but for the purposes of giving some of those rights away. It's a jujitsu move. The more restrive CC licenses do rely heavily on copyright, but CC BY? Or CC BY-SA? Relying on copyright is much more of a technically to assert that rights are actually being waived.

    Only some licenses have "narrowly defined circumstances" (in which case, I agree with you). But I don't think that CC BY and BY-SA are narrowly defined.

    And the CC folks would prefer that people use more permissive licenses (though, I think they could do a better job of encouraging that).

  • On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2009 @ 04:24pm

    Free Creative Commons License Can Show What's Possible Without Copyright In The Way

    One of the most confusing things, whenever talking about Creative Commons and copyright, is that the CC licenses are all very different.

    (BY-NC-ND is just free-as-in-price, there are big problems with the NC provision, and BY and BY-SA are considered free-as-in-freedom, nevermind BY-ND, which is confusingly used by the Free Software Foundation because it fits Stallman's view of political speech.)

    I think the free CC licenses (BY and BY-SA) are important to the copyright debate. It's not just a badge to wear, but it's a tool. Wikipedia would not be possible without a free license like BY-SA (or it's original GNU Free Documentation license). It's also important to note the machine readable component of the licenses, which enabled things like Flickr's CC search tool.

    While copyright sucks, these licenses enable better models to be put into practice. The free software community shows that better business models can be put in place without a dependency on copyright, but free licenses are needed to facilitate that while restrictive copyright is the default. The contract here is just a jujitsu like move that reverses the effects of copyright. Free licenses depend on copyright, yes, but in the absence of copyright (or at least unreasonable copyright), they would no longer be necessary. (The attribution requirement doesn't need to be a legal thing, imho, that should be a social norm.)

    Free licenses, like CC BY-SA on the GNU GPL, allow for systems to be build based on freedom and large scale collaboration (instead of permission, royalties). This is essential to the copyright debate, because it proves that other approaches to copyright work. When people predictably ask, "but how are we supposed to get paid?", we can point models built on top of free licenses.

    Techdirt has the human readable license, without the machine readable or legal code. Free licenses enable a sort of large scale collaboration for other projects that wouldn't be possible without the legal code or legal interoperability (and the machine readable code certain helps).

    The non-free licenses, on the other hand...

Next >>