People Will Create Stuff For Free? Impossible!
from the okay,-maybe-not dept
It's always fun to hear people say that without intellectual property rules creative works would disappear. This is wrong on any number of levels, as we've discussed in great detail. However, Justin Levine points us to an an amusing analysis of George Lucas' plans to let fans post their own video mashups on the Star Wars website. Lucasfilm and a company named Eyespot will run ads alongside these mashups, keeping all the money for themselves. They also won't let the people who create the mashups profit from them directly. If ever there were a case of digital exploitation, this should be it, right? Or, as the tongue-in-cheek analysis from Randy Barnett notes:"But the laugh is really going to be on Lucasfilm because, as we all know, people won't invest scarce time producing creative works that others want to watch without the financial incentives provided by intellectual "property" rights granted for "limited times" (i.e. in perpetuity). So it is safe to predict that no one will contribute any mashups to the new Starwars.com website. Boy, will that be embarrassing for them!"Indeed. Yet, somehow, people are still going to tell us that without intellectual property there would be no incentives to create content?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Art
Money corrupts what it touches. Art is not immune. Some of the greatest artistic works in human history come about by poor artists. These people and their works are not famous nor are they popular until they have long since passed.
I can say this, I am one. I've been payed for work, I've been commissioned for work, and I've done work out of my own free creative will completely without pay. The latter by far being the better work.
When I really give a crap about my free work all I'll ask is that credit is given where credit is due and that you not destroy my original work by building on it unnecessarily. (IE, no ugly derivative works)
Then again I can't stop it, and if someone really wants to make something ugly...well, at least have the good sense to leave only your name on it. Haha...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop!
Are economists and diehard capitalists so isolated from reality that they really think being creative and contributing to the world via your expression really needs a price tag for people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube
However, for those people who do have a bit of time to spare, this rule does not apply. Like me, for example. I have a bit of time to spare. I definitely would make a Star Wars Mashup if I had a good idea. And I'm not getting anything out of it. Or am I?
The comment also whittles "gain" down to financial gain or no financial gain. But there are other types of gain. For example, fame or a sense of accomplishment.
Why do you think people post things on YouTube? There's no financial gain from posting your video on YouTube. People do it because they had a fun time making the video, and they want to show other people their creation. They gain a sense of accomplishment and, if their video is popular, a bit of e-fame. With the Star Wars website, it's the exact same situation, only it's focused on a different population - namely Star Wars Fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube
That might have actually been said in the link "discussed in great detail." Sorry if it was - I didn't read into it yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube
The comment also whittles "gain" down to financial gain or no financial gain. But there are other types of gain. For example, fame or a sense of accomplishment.
That's why the quote is tongue-in-cheek...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....
Star Wars is over-rated!
TREK RULES!!!
*runs, hides and prays to St. Janeway*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pros
But I'd bet you practically anything you care to mention that the type of person we're talking about would create even MORE stuff if they could just afford to do so. Unfortunately, there are pesky things like rent and food and clothing and insurance and so on to worry about.
If only there were some mechanism such that, if people enjoyed their creations, they could get paid to spend their time creating even more of them...... hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pros
But I'd bet you practically anything you care to mention that the type of person we're talking about would create even MORE stuff if they could just afford to do so. Unfortunately, there are pesky things like rent and food and clothing and insurance and so on to worry about.
Once again, you seem to have missed out on the fact that there are many models to get paid that don't involve copyright. We've pointed them out before.
If only there were some mechanism such that, if people enjoyed their creations, they could get paid to spend their time creating even more of them...... hmmm....
Right. We've pointed out plenty of such mechanisms that don't limit what the market can do with content.
The problem, though, is every time we do that people tell us that no one will ever create content without getting paid for it.
So now we've shown that, yes they will, and there are ways to get paid for it. So what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's like asking me:
(1) Store A can make a lot more money selling product B than product C.
(2) Why are you suggesting that Store A sell product B?
I'm not upset at Store A deciding to sell product C. I'm just saying that they're not making as much money as they can and are opening themselves up to competition. As I've said repeatedly, I'm trying to show them that they can do better. If they don't want to, that is their decision... but it doesn't mean I won't point out why it's a bad decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Star Wars Mashups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
Whenever we have a Star Wars itch that needs to be scrached, we rip it. Ditto Trek, Alien, and Full House. George deciding he can make money/keep control over it doesn't change anything. At least, anything outside of George's head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical
1) If people were allowed to make money on their mash-ups then they would put more time, money, and effort into creating them.
2) Money is not the only incentive in this case. The producers names will get a limited amount of exposure, which is enough "fame" for some.
3) It is a decent opportunity to showcase ones ability in the field, and may get them noticed by people of importance in the industry, giving them opportunity to get a job to make money.
Perhaps if Lucas took the videos, stripped the credits off of them and claimed them as his own then you would have a halfway decent article.
But since this story has nothing to do with creating content without copyright protection, your FUD is baseless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical
1) If people were allowed to make money on their mash-ups then they would put more time, money, and effort into creating them.
I never said people couldn't make money from their mashups. In fact, I suggest ways people can make more money.
2) Money is not the only incentive in this case. The producers names will get a limited amount of exposure, which is enough "fame" for some.
Indeed. I've said that repeatedly. In fact, I've used that argument over and over and over again every time people get upset with my points for why IP isn't needed to have people make content.
3) It is a decent opportunity to showcase ones ability in the field, and may get them noticed by people of importance in the industry, giving them opportunity to get a job to make money.
Same point I've made repeatedly.
So, you agree with me entirely. So how come you claim my article is FUD? Oh, I know. Because you have to disagree with everything I say without coming up with a rational response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason it was all good was that he was a genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh the horror! He should have been able to retire forever rich after his first "hit"! But having to work on a continuing basis? Honestly, I don't see how some people do it.
Poor Mozart. He had to rely on talent because without copyright that was all he had. If only he had lived today he could have just cranked out "stuff" with much less thought and effort required. And that highlights another great way copyright benefits society: It turns mediocre authors into great ones, no genius required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Star Wars
It makes you wonder how different movies would be today if they were truly works of art instead of attempts to become rich. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How different movies would be today if they were truly works of art instead of attempts to become rich? Ummm, even worse than whats out there today?
Look, I golf, I like to golf. I don't get paid to play golf, but I play anyway. Does that mean that works for Tiger Woods?
All of you clamoring for free content, set everything free, hey, you are all free to do so. You can make all the movies you want, you can record all the songs you want and distribute it out for free. What is keeping you from doing that? Why do you all have a problem with others who don't wish to go that route?
You want crappy content, go to YouTube and you will get your fill. You want professional production, it costs money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And where did I say production was free? The final result ended up being free, but my Star Wars movie examples cost the producers a great deal of money. They aren't just playing around.
YouTube may host crappy content, but it's crappy content that was never available before. In contrast to the years of "professional productions" on TV, the crappy content is a welcome addition because it's actually very entertaining to see what people on "my level" can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is done all the time, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just have a problem with some of the thoughts here that think everything should be free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]