Preserving our Culture
Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
Who doesn't like free? Everyone does. And we know that for years now, we've
grown accustomed to everything online being free (whether it was intended to be
free is another matter).
Liz Peek in the New York Sun admits
she likes things online to be free as well. But Ms. Peek is one of the few
people considering what the implications are of that expectation:
The country's competitive edge is firmly established in its creativity,
technology, and knowledge-based endeavors. What if no one were willing to pay
for these things?For any good to be exported successfully, people have to be willing to pay
for it. With the Internet burrowing into a growing number of activities, which
many consumers are unwilling to pay for, music and news companies are seeing
profits plummet. Can video production, stock analysis, advertising, and
retailing, to name a few, be far behind?
This brings to mind the Prisoner's Dilemma often cited with creative works
online. Everybody, even rabid file-sharers, knows that there has to be some
ability to monetize creative works in order for them to continue to be produced.
That means that we should all be willing to pay something for our music, movies,
e-books, software, etc. But no one likes to be a sucker. Why should I pay when
my neighbor is getting it for free? The rational thing for me to do is to get it
free myself, and assume everyone else will do the right thing and pay. But if
everyone acts "rationally," then no one pays.
Ms. Peek concludes thusly:
There is another force at work that devalues published material. These
days, anyone can start up a Web site and promote his own songs, videos, or
writings. An economist would say that having the floodgates open via the
Internet has caused the collapse of barriers to entry for "content" professions
such as journalism. Inevitably, pay for such output should drop. He would
probably believe firmly in such platitudes until he found his own writings
appropriated without credit or remuneration on several random Web sites.This is not a small problem. In the aggregate, it is a national problem.
America, for better or worse (don't ask the French), are the leaders in music,
films, and news distribution. It needs, sooner rather than later, to figure out
how profitability can be restored to these undertakings.
I love this passage, and not just for the dig at the French (who whatever
else you may say about them, are fierce believers in copyright, and I do love
them for that). She correctly points out that there are more avenues than ever
for self-production and self-promotion, and that is a very good thing. But she
also notes that such collapse of barriers for artists comes part-and-parcel with
a collapse in distinction online between a garage band whose web site is visited
by a few classmates and a work composed by a stellar songwriter and performed by
a remarkable performing artist. Both are ones and zeroes online, and both are
driven to free. In this case, the economist's hard work is freely taken and
freely used on other sites.
Opponents of copyright often claim that they are defending culture. I have
pointed out in the past that, by contrast, copyright
enriches culture. In the process, it also spurs our exports and economy, as
Ms. Peek notes.
