The Price of Everything - Eduardo Porter [71]
“Saul and I went at this thing with the right intentions,” Reznor said later. “We wanted to put out the music that we believe in. We want to do it as unencumbered and as un-revenue-ad-generated and un-corporate-affiliated as possible. We wanted it without a string attached, without the hassle, without the bait and switch, or the ‘Now you can buy the s**** version if you buy . . .’ No, no, we said: ‘Here it is. At the same time, it’d be nice if we can cover the costs and perhaps make a living doing it.’” For Williams, the “pay what you wish” model allowed 126,177 people—more than four out of five of those who downloaded his music—to pay nothing at all. It is very difficult to make a living against odds like that.
STEALING SNEAKERS
In 1979, the Canadian government asked Stan Liebowitz, an American economist who studied copyright, to look into the impact that photocopying and retransmitting TV broadcasts on cable channels would have on publishers and broadcasters. Liebowitz observed that publishers were able to increase the price of the works they published because users valued the fact that they could make copies. To the chagrin of the networks and publishers, he concluded that copying wouldn’t necessarily hurt them. “I appear to be the first economist to suggest that illicit copying might actually benefit copyright owners,” Liebowitz wrote, years later. “But in those days there was not an army of copyright critics to embrace my work and make me a hero, as there is now.”
Yet by now he’s changed his mind. Three decades since his seminal photocopying study, Stan Liebowitz too doubts there is money to be made from giving music away for free. In a recent study he concluded that the entire decline in the sales of albums in a sample of ninety-nine American cities between 1998 and 2003 was due to rampant online file sharing. Interestingly, sales of jazz and classical music increased—perhaps a testament to the average age of their typical listeners. But sales of hard rock, rap, and R&B fell by double digits.
It’s a little bit like stealing sneakers, he observed. It is not impossible that a street gang that steals a shipment of sneakers might ultimately boost sales of the footwear if it happens to be a trendsetting paragon of coolness in the neighborhood. A kid who shoplifts steak might mean more business for the butcher over the long term if the theft induces in the thief a lifelong taste for prime beef. Still, Liebowitz pointed out, “I have never seen these types of argument put forward in a serious way to suggest that society might be better off if the prohibition on theft were overturned.”
On the Internet, the thief is trying to convince the butcher it is in his best interest to hand the steak over to influence his dietary habits. When Google needed illustrations with which to garland its new browser, Chrome, it suggested to illustrators that providing the art for free would be in their best interest. “[W]e believe these projects provide a unique and exciting opportunity for artists to display their work in front of millions of people,” Google said. Melinda Beck, an illustrator in Brooklyn, sent Google an e-mail in response to the offer. She noted that she had worked for high-profile clients like Target and Nickelodeon, which had given her work lots of exposure. Still, she pointed out, “Both clients still paid me.”
The Google spirit is catching, though, as could be seen in an ad in the fall of 2009 for a law firm in Menlo Park, California, on the free classifieds service Craigslist. “The current economic climate has made it difficult for young lawyers to find paid positions,” it read. “Good experience with a top notch firm is what we offer. If you can realistically make a six to twelve month commitment and can get by without compensation (other than billable travel, mileage, parking and related expenses), this is an excellent opportunity.” Comments to the ad, picked up on a legal blog, were