stories filed under: "free"
Music Publishers Still Annoyed By Free Online Archive Of Public Domain Musical Scores
from the comeptition-sucks dept
For years, we've covered how some in the classical music world have become quite upset by "free" classical music in the internet era, complaining about how it "devalues" music. Of course, the reality is that they're just upset about losing their role as a gatekeeper -- even when it comes to public domain music. A few folks have sent in this recent NY Times story about the International Music Score Library Project, and how some classical music publishers don't like it, with a few (mainly in Europe) threatening copyright claims. The site was specifically set up to provide protection to the site's creators against such claims (a few years back, he took the entire site down due to threats, but then restructured it and put it back up). The really silly part is how the publishers of these scores seem to simply assume a right to make a living from the way things used to be:"You're paying for something that's worth more than the paper you're receiving," said Jonathan Irons, Universal Edition's promotion manager in Vienna. "Everybody expects somebody else to pay for it."It's hard to think of a statement more confused. No one's "expecting somebody else" to pay for the value. They know it's already been paid for. These works are old works. The "value" of the work is not the same thing as the price, and if the economics of the situation mean that works already created can be more widely distributed and used at a low price, that's a good thing. It means we have abundance in the market.
Filed Under: classical music, free, music scores
Case Study: How TED Learned That 'Giving It Away' Increased Both Popularity And Revenue
from the cwf+rtb dept
LaRae Meadows was kind enough to send over her analysis of how the famed TED conference not only embraced the whole CwF+RtB concept, but also learned that giving away the infinite goods can massively increase the value of scarce goods. It's actually a really great case study example. One of the complaints that we sometimes hear in response to arguments about giving away the infinite goods in order to increase the value of scarce goods, is the claim that content creators can already sell lots of scarce goods, so why should they also set the infinite goods free.What they don't realize, is that, when done properly, setting those infinite goods free helps increase both the popularity and value of the scarce goods. A simple version of this is that a band who isn't that well known in a certain region, is unlikely to be able to book a larger venue, or charge very much for tickets (a scarce good). However, if that band is much more well known (and liked, of course!) then they can book larger venues and charge higher rates (within reason, of course).
And that's exactly what TED figured out.
The amazingly exclusive conference used to be excessively secretive as well. Attendees, who paid thousands for the privilege (and who could only attend if they were "invited"), had to sign non-disclosure agreements, and no one was supposed to publicly discuss or show what the TED speakers talked about. If you think about this from a classical "scarcities-only" economics viewpoint, you can see why people would think this was smart. After all, that content is valuable, so the natural desire is to hoard it, with the classical thinking being that by hoarding it and putting up an artificial scarcity around the content, you make it more valuable.
But what TED has learned is that it appears the opposite is true. Once current TED curator Chris Anderson (not the Wired/Long Tail Chris Anderson) took over, and changed the system, part of the change was making every TED talk available for free online. And, of course, these days, the public TED talks site has become a hugely popular destination site.
Now, again, under the classical theory, this should have harmed the value of TED itself. After all, if you can see all the talks for free, why pay thousands of dollars to go in person. But, if you add back in the economics of abundance and infinite goods, you realize that doesn't make any sense. The infinte goods (the content) can be widely distributed and shared for free, acting as a massive promotion for the scarce (the seats) and thereby increasing their value. And that's exactly what's happened:
Since the videos were released for free and shared with the world, the cost of a seat at TED Conference has gone up from $4,400 to $6,000 per seat. They found a wider audience by expanding the focus. TED moved from their home in Monterey, CA to Long Beach, CA to accommodate more attendees. TED spawned a sister conference, TEDGlobal which is held in a different country each year. TEDActive 2012 meets at the same time as the TED Conference and costs $3,750 to watch a live simulcast of the TED Conference, after which attendees are encouraged to discuss the talks. They also encouraged TEDx conferences were TED fans hold mini-TED conferences they host themselves. All this while increasing the quality of the production of their talks, sticking true to their goals, keeping their exceptional level of speakers, developing a loyal following, and becoming an award-winning Internet powerhouse.By "giving away" the infinite for free, and helping to spread it and syndicate it as far and as wide as possible, TED was able to massively boost its brand awareness and interest, and increase the value of the seats. And that's increased in almost every way. They moved the conference to handle more people and increased the price and introduced a (only slightly) cheaper "simulcast" conference and added additional events. And an awful lot of that is due to the publicity generated from the free TED talks. In the past, TED was well known only in very specific circles. But by opening up and freeing the infinite goods, it's become massively well-known throughout the world... and it's also made the event itself able to earn a lot more money (which it then uses to further the core mission of disseminating 'ideas worth spreading.')
Filed Under: business models, connecting, free, ted
Death Of Nokia's 'Comes With Music' Shows That 'Free' With DRM Is A Losing Proposition
from the dead-and-buried dept
This is from a little while ago, but I'm just catching up on some older stories. Reader Rabbit80 points us to the news that Nokia has finally put its "Comes with Music" program out of its misery and shut it down. Comes with Music was actually an interesting idea: you buy a phone and for 12 months you get free music downloads. At a conceptual level, this sounds great: you're using the abundant (free music!) to make the scarce (mobile phone!) more valuable. But, like everything, a good idea can be marred by the execution. And, in this case, the execution involved the major record labels demanding that "Comes with Music" really mean "Comes with DRM'd Music." A year and a half ago we pointed out that Comes With Music was really getting very little uptake, and the decision to kill it off just confirms how weak the pickup was.Nokia says that it was the DRM that was the real killer:
"The markets clearly want a DRM-free music service."And, of course, there was nothing stopping the labels from allowing a DRM-free service, but they still have this infatuation with DRM, even though they finally came around to ditching the DRM on MP3 sales.
That said, this little real world experiment once again seems to highlight how the claim that "people just want stuff for free" is a myth. Here was a case where people could get the music they wanted for free... but it came limited and so they weren't interested. It's rarely about people just wanting stuff for free. It's often about the restrictions or the convenience of things. The price is nice, but it's rarely the key factor, despite what some industry folks would like to claim.
Case Study: Leah Day Brings Free To The Quilting World
from the arts-&-crafts dept
Having made an award-winning feature film, the next logical step in my career would naturally be...quilting. That's what my Muse says, anyway, and I've learned not to argue with Her. So, for the past 2 months, I've been learning how to quilt, something I've never done before in my life (no family members nor friends quilt) but find fascinating.
Starting from zero knowledge, the first place I sought information was the Internet. Easier said than done: quilts are poorly represented online. Art quilters are extremely cagey about their designs and techniques; online photographs of art quilts are scarce and those that do show up tend to be postage-stamp tiny.
Leah Day is a happy exception to this rule. Through her web site Day Style Designs, she offers countless Free tutorials on quilting techniques, from the most basic (how to iron and starch your fabric - something this beginner found invaluable) to the most advanced. While other quilters cling to their designs and issue threats against copying, Leah goes in the opposite direction, sharing freely, inviting copying, and requesting (rather than demanding) links back to her site.
Leah specializes in Free Motion Quilting, a kind of drawing with a sewing machine. She is best known for her 365 Free Motion Quilting Project, a personal challenge "to come up with a new free motion filler design every day for a whole year."
A quilt is a piece of art and the free motion filler designs add an element of texture and thread to the surface of the quilt that nothing else can. A quilt is simply not a quilt without the quilting stitches. Think of the filler designs as texture created by a painter with a paintbrush. Only instead of paint, quilters are creating that texture with thread.I searched for a book to teach me creative free motion filler designs. I didn't find one. Maybe I wasn't searching hard enough because when the idea of this project came to me, I couldn't get it out of my head.
Leah makes clear, short videos of creating the designs, which she posts on her blog, along with photographs of the finished designs and the message, "Feel free to use this free motion quilting design in your quilts and send in a picture to show it off!"
The quilting world is apparently rife with copyright bullying. Those sweet little old ladies (average age of 'dedicated quilters' is 62) issue threats against anyone who would copy 'their' designs, which consist entirely of un-copyrightable motifs like squares, circles and spirals. As long as neither the bullies nor the victims know much about copyright law, the quilting community maintains the fiction that ideas are property.
The free model is very, very new to quilting. Most quilt patterns are covered by copyright, so you can't use the design for any commercial purpose. I can't make a quilt from a pattern and sell the quilt without first contacting the original designer for permission. I can't even show that quilt in a national show without permission.And that's just for the quilt top design! The free motion designs can also apparently be copyrighted (which is insane). How can I copyright "Basic Spiral"? It's a spiral design! Spirals have been around for thousands of years! Am I the first to quilt it on a quilt? Heck no! I'm just the first person to give it a name and teach you how to do it.
Leah monetizes her work primarily through her online Quilt Shop, which stocks only products she uses herself daily. Although the selection isn't broad, it's a great strategy. As a beginner, her recommendations guided my initial purchases; I happily spent over $250 at her shop. If I need more quilting supplies, I'll check her shop first. I'd rather have sale profits benefit her than Amazon, and the prices are the same. That is fan behavior: I'm a fan of her videos, grateful for what she shares, and I want to support her. She makes it easy to do so, by selling supplies. It's Connect With Fans + Reason To Buy in action.
Demand from fans also led her to publish an instructional book and DVD. Even though all the designs in it are free on her blog, fans begged for a printed book they could keep next their sewing machines. Because she's connected to fans, she knows what they want, what will sell, and where to invest her energies.
It is unlikely the copyright maximalists of the quilting world support themselves from copyrighting, or quilting. Quilts themselves are tremendously undervalued and underpriced:
Even the purchase price at major shows (AQS Paducah is probably the biggest) is only $30,000. For the level of work and detail that go into quilts, it's pennies per hour.This is why I don't sell my quilts. I have sold only 2 since I started quilting and even those two limited experiences taught me that this was a good way to stay broke and live frustrated. Making what other people want, rather than what I want, is not creative, it's slave labor.
Americans spend $3.6 billion on quilting annually (yes, you read that right), primarily for quilting supplies and equipment, followed by conferences, classes, and workshops. Most quilters are affluent and retired. Presumably they cling to copyright due to control issues, not a need to make money. In contrast, Leah Day needs to make money - she is 27 years old and supporting a young family. Is it any wonder that she has embraced Free?
The more fans Leah gets, the more sales she makes, and the higher her profile as an artist and teacher. In its first year, her online shop grossed about $140,000. Prior to the Free Motion Quilting Project, Leah was virtually unknown; she now leads a growing community of fans and customers. Says Leah, "Free is really what's put me on the map."
Rethinking Copyright: Letting Free Be Free
from the rather-than-locking-it-up dept
Lots of folks have been rethinking copyright lately, and there are some interesting ideas out there (some of which we'll be exploring at the SXSW panel I'm moderating in March on "what would copyright law look like if it were created today?"). Michael Scott points us to an interesting piece by someone at the Yale Law & Technology blog arguing that copyright only works for big companies and does more harm than good for "smaller" artists. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning of how it works better for some than others, and while I don't think copyright is a particularly effective or useful mechanism for nearly all artists, this separation of big and small artists seems like a stretch. In fact, I'm sure many smaller artists claim (perhaps not entirely accurately) that copyright keeps their works from being exploited by large companies.The author's "solution" to copyright issues may be better than what we have now, but it seems like there would likely be many other problems. His solution is basically to use an attribution-non-commercial Creative Commons license as the default, and then let others (in his estimation, big companies) ratchet up their copyright protections, if they so choose. I'm not convinced this really makes that much sense. This just gives the big corporations more leverage to scoop up the rights from others, taking many artists further away from their fans. On top of that, we've explained many times why the whole "non-commercial" thing isn't as simple as some would have you believe, and that there are good reasons not to put in place a "non-commercial" caveat.
Still, it's nice to see more and more people recognizing that our current copyright system is hopelessly broken. Whether they'll ever be in a position to fix things is a whole different story.
Filed Under: copyright, free, non-commercial
David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
from the more-people-figuring-it-out dept
Award-winning musician/DJ/producer David Guetta seems to have figured out that "free" is not a bad thing. In a recent interview, he notes that he's never worried about "piracy" at all, and that the solution is just to give away stuff for free to keep an audience engaged and to offer more opportunities to continue to build your fan base:"I have never been very nervous about online piracy," the Daily Star quotes him as saying.Plenty of others have made this realization as well, but it's nice to see stars with as big a name as Guetta saying it publicly as well.
"Sometimes you have to give away content, even if it isn't bringing you money. It doesn't have to be music, it can be videos, images and so on."
Filed Under: david guetta, free, piracy
YouTube Notes That Free Music, With Ads, Pays As Well, If Not Better, Than Paid
from the those-digital-dimes-add-up dept
One of the more frustrating things about watching people declare certain things as "fact" in the tech world is the failure to recognize the rate of change and trends as they go. For example, for years, people dismissed the idea that music on YouTube could effectively be monetized if it was available for "free." And yet, now YouTube is noting that free music can actually pay just as well as paid music services, and the trend certainly suggests that the money from the free music on YouTube is growing much faster in its earning potential than any paid service. Of course, how long will it take for the major record labels to recognize this. Warner Music has already declared that it won't do any more free streaming deals. On top of that, the rumors about both Spotify and Google Music in the US have all been about how the labels don't want to allow much free music to be offered. How many times does it need to be explained to record label execs that "free" does not necessarily mean "no money," and when done correctly, it can actually mean "more money."Filed Under: business models, economics, free, music, streaming, youtube
Subscription Porn Site SLAPPed Down After Suing RedTube For Undermining Its Business Model
from the competing-isn't-undermining dept
We've joked in the past about how many of the complaints we see from companies about new, more innovative competitors, is that they somehow represent "felony interference of a business model." Some companies, it seems, like to believe that if they have a successful business model, any new competitor that changes the market around must be doing so illegally. Eric Goldman points us to just such a lawsuit in California, where the proprietor of a subscription based porn website sued RedTube, one of many, many porn-focused free streaming video sites, and many of RedTube's advertisers, arguing unfair competition. Basically, the argument was that by setting up a website and offering these porn videos for free, while making money on the advertising, RedTube was effectively "dumping" its product on the market below cost in order to harm the market and make money elsewhere.RedTube, in response, filed an anti-SLAPP claim, saying that the lawsuit sought to silence RedTube exercising its First Amendment rights of speech. While a lower court mostly agreed, it did leave open one small piece of the unfair competition claim, related to the issue of the claim that someone at RedTube's parent company signed up for the plaintiff's subscription website, downloaded the videos, and posted them on RedTube. However, the California state appeals court rejects the lower court's argument, and agrees that even this claim should be tossed out, because it's only unfair competition if the plaintiff can show that he has, in fact, lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. Since the plaintiff was unable to do so, the court ruled that this claim got tossed out too (though, if true, you do wonder if there might be a copyright issue -- which does not appear to have been raised here).
On the overall point of underpricing the market unfairly, the court points out how silly this is, noting that giving away free content in exchange for advertising is a business model that's been around for ages, and is hardly a form of unfair competition:
If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites including Youtube, CNN and Video.Yahoo.The court also points out, in its opening, that business models change, and companies need to keep up -- and they shouldn't expect the law to keep their old business models in place:
In the 21st century, businesses of all kinds are having to adapt to a constantly changing commercial landscape. The business that the parties describe as the "adult entertainment" industry is no exception. Websites that originally made their money by offering such material on a subscription or pay-per-view basis are being replaced by "tube" websites which offer their content for free and make their money through advertising.There's also an interesting discussion over whether or not RedTube qualifies for SLAPP protections, as the site's content must involve the "furtherance of their right of free speech on a public issue." The plaintiff said that his complaint had nothing to do with stopping speech, but from the "anti-competitive conduct." The court notes that even publishing videos of porn online is conduct in the furtherance of speech and, in fact, that there is a "substantial public interest in the kind of sexually explicit videos shown on tube-sites such as Redtube." That's one way to put it.
The final point that seemed worth discussing on this is just how silly some "anti-competitive" behavior laws and rulings can be. Part of the plaintiff's argument here was to bring up a bit of caselaw involving two competing San Fransisco tourist cruises, where one firm got in trouble for selling tickets below cost, even though the firm made it up elsewhere. The court rejects this, by claiming that the earlier ruling doesn't apply here because RedTube "does not sell two separate products." That seems silly to me, and if anything really just highlights the problem with the original court ruling about using the tickets as a loss leader. If you read the ruling this way, you get a nonsensical result: giving away the videos for free would be legal, but charging a penny for them could suddenly be seen as unfair competition, because now it would be "selling" two separate products. Bundling multiple products, such that some are given away free or cheaply in the interest of a larger business model should never be seen as anti-competitive on its own. While I agree with the outcome, it seemed like this was the most confused part of the court's ruling, in that it tapdanced around what was, basically, a really bad ruling. The real issue should be to get rid of any rule that says such kinds of bundles are against the law in the first place.
Filed Under: business models, free, porn, unfair competition
Companies: redtube
But I Thought Newspapers Couldn't Be 'Free'?
from the the-myths-the-dinosaurs-tell-you dept
We keep hearing from legacy newspaper folks how "news can't be free," as they look to set up paywalls and other such barriers to folks actually participating in the news process. And yet, as has been discussed time and time again, for most people the news was already effectively free. Subscription fees rarely (if ever) covered distribution and printing costs. The real money has always been in advertising. As if to make the point even stronger, it appears that the UK's free newspaper, the Metro, is doing phenomenally well, even as other newspapers struggle. The Metro has found its niche and they've taken to it. And it's not just about the "free" part of the newspaper. As the report notes, as the readership of the newspapers themselves have gone up (often during the daily commute), so too has the readership on the news organization's website. Apparently people are reading the news on paper while commuting, then once they get to the office, they are logging into the website to comment or share the stories with others. It's a lot tougher to do that with a paywall...Filed Under: business models, free, metro, newspapers, uk
