Freedom Isn’t Free
A Reflection on the Cost of Digital Content, with 10 Suggestions to Fellow Christians
by Fr. Thomas McKenzie, www.ThomasMcKenzie.com
“ ‘Information wants to be free.’ So goes the saying. . . I say that information doesn’t deserve to be free.” -- Jaron Lanier, You Are Not A Gadget
Jaron Lanier is one of the foremost computer scientists in the world, and the man who coined the term “virtual reality.” He has spent more time reflecting on the implications of the internet than most anyone else on earth. In his recent manifesto, You are Not a Gadget, he argues persuasively that the movement towards free information on the internet has choked creativity, dumbed down innovation, and led to a popular culture of nostalgic malaise. In order to make his point, he looks at most modern music and its apparent inability to do much more than rehash, mashup, and remix the songs and styles of previous generations.
Lanier points out that the economics of free information were supposed to unleash a generation of new artists, writers, musicians and craftspeople who would be unfettered by the need to seek corporate sponsorship or wealthy supporters. Unfortunately, I believe we have seen a morass of inadequate and amateurish products and a deficit of excellence in the artistic fields. Of course, there are also excellent artists doing excellent work, but these brave souls find themselves in an environment in which it is increasingly difficult (if not impossible) to support themselves on the proceeds of their art. Further, the economics of the internet have led to the bankruptcy of many journalistic institutions and the severe degradation of the free press. While there are untold numbers of celebrity-hunting bloggers, there are fewer and fewer credible journalists with the backing to go after the most important stories. Democracy needs a substantial press, Edmond Burke's "fourth estate;" we are in grave danger of losing ours.
I believe we have done enormous damage by refusing to pay for content simply because it is in digital form. By stealing music, we have prevented musicians from operating creatively; and hindered music business people from encouraging and producing new talent. By pirating photography, we have cut the legs out from under artists. By refusing to pay for journalism, we have devastated newspapers and network news. Those of us who consume free internet content have made it increasingly difficult to produce high quality movies, television, journalism, fiction, poetry, art, music, travel guides, cookbooks--the list is endless. Yes, there are more videos to watch than ever before. But the best of these are still being produced by the movie studios and cable networks of the old economy. These studios and networks are being financially starved to death.
"Who cares?" some say. After all, NBC and EMI and HBO are just big corporations. Fight the power, screw the Man! They deserve to burn. The problem is that they are burning, but there is no one to replace them. Will rich bankers rise up to sponsor the next Sopranos? Will the Church take contributions to bankroll the next U2? Is it Bill Gates or the Pope or the Sultan of Brunei who will save us from an endless stream of cat videos and 80s remixes? I am amused by basketball tricks on YouTube, but I fear that I will never see another Godfather.
All of these concerns are pragmatic, and ultimately selfish. I want to be well informed and well entertained. But I have other concerns as well. I am a Christian, the pastor of a church, and a priest of the Anglican Communion. It is my duty to speak to my fellow Believers, especially those in my care, about the moral cost of free internet content. I do not intend to moralize to those outside of my faith; but I would like to speak to those inside of it.
On one hand there is the moral principle against theft. A great deal of digital content is stolen simply because it is digital. Most people in the Church would not break into someone’s house to steal a DVD from a shelf or a picture from the wall. However, many of us might pass along movies or pictures which we have illegally copied. In so doing, we are violating one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou Shall Not Steal.” (Exodus 20:15) We have also violated Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39) Stealing from another person is not loving. Further, in many cases we may be going against Christ’s final commandment to “love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34) When we steal from Christian artists, many of whom we worship with on Sunday morning, we ignore the instructions that Jesus said would set us apart from the rest of the world--"by this will all know that you are my disciples, that you love one another." (John 13:35)
I am speaking to myself. I have personally stolen digital content. While I have never illegally downloaded music, I have ripped CDs and passed them on to others, and I have received digital music that other people did not have the legal right to give me. I have no idea how many times I may have misused digitized art to spice up powerpoint presentations at church functions.
It is easy to steal digital content, as it is easy to view digital pornography or gamble illegally online or send anonymous messages of hate to those who differ from us. It is all done so privately, so effortlessly. There is little or no danger of being reprimanded by any outside source. However, these behaviors are deadly to our souls; and God is always present. There is no moral difference between sinning with a computer and sinning without one.
On the other hand, there is the more complex question of using content that is available both free and legally. There are no laws against consuming much of what we might find on the internet. In many cases, this content may be distributed under specific conditions, such as a Creative Commons License (as this essay is). The site where we find the content may be trying to pay for itself through advertising, for instance, or through private investment.
The problem is that most high quality content found on the internet (music, video games, stories, illustrations, etc.) costs significantly more money to create than it is making on-line. There is a huge gap between the cost of production and the price of consumption. Some organizations, such as the New York Times or the makers of the game Spore, complain about this gap and seek to correct it. When they do, they are endlessly mocked on blogs and many consumers refuse to pay up. This results in such organizations either backing down or finding themselves with far fewer customers. In either case, the degradation of content continues, professional people are laid off, and the public gets more and more Beyoncé mashups to feast on.
Certainly many people produce content simply for the love of it. I am personally in that camp. I record film reviews solely as a hobby. But I can afford to do this. If I wanted to set aside all other work to become a serious film critic, the current on-line economy guarantees that my family would starve. Thousands of professionals are losing their vocations because of the high cost of "free" content.
While most Christians agree (theoretically) that stealing is wrong, I want to challenge our moral principles still further. When St. Paul was writing to the churches, there was a question as to whether pastors should be paid. In addressing this question Paul quoted both the Old Testament and Jesus himself when he wrote “the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” (1 Timothy 5:18) Paul is speaking of our need to pay ministers; he is not speaking about digital content creators. However, there is a principle here I would suggest we consider. Notice his use of the agricultural example used by Moses. (Deuteronomy 15:4) As an ox tread grain the Israelites were instructed to leave its mouth free. Why? So that the ox could eat as he worked. Paul then associates this with Jesus saying ‘a worker deserves his wages.‘ (Luke 10:7) If a dumb animal should be allowed to make his living off his own labor, why not those who preach? And why not those who create intellectual and creative content? Just because their content is digitized and placed on the internet, are they less deserving than animals or pastors of reaping reward for their work? Should we pay our pastors for their helpful words, but not our musicians and reporters and poets?
I believe that it is a Christian duty to pay laborers for the work they do on our behalf. If we run a business, we should pay our employees. We should pay the people who we might hire to mow our lawns or care for our animals while we are out of town. We should pay our taxes so that the police and firefighters and teachers on whom we rely may be compensated for their efforts. We should do our part to pay those whose digitized content we both use and value. This seems to me to be a reasonable application of our Lord’s declaration that “a worker deserves his wages.” This sounds like justice.
With this in mind, I offer these suggestions to my fellow Christian Believers. They are not commandments, as I refuse to lay down any law. Rather, these are thoughtful and godly ideas. These are not suggested laws or market practices. They are meant for individuals. I would ask that my readers consider these suggestions and pray about putting them into practice. I would also encourage others to comment on this essay, challenge my ideas, and make other suggestions.
10 Suggestions for the Christian’s Use of Digital Content
1) Do not steal, even if you can. Do not download or share files which are being offered illegally.
2) Do not receive stolen merchandise, even if it is digital. If content was taken illegally, or is being offered to you in violation of the law, politely refuse to accept it.
3) If you have stolen content in the past, delete it and buy it legally.
4) Do not violate the terms of use of digital material. If a file is offered for non-commercial use, do not use it commercially. If a picture is available for use if you attribute the artist, attribute it to her.
5) When in doubt, do your best. Some files have been copied and re-posted so many times you may have no way of ever finding the original terms of use. There is no perfect system; do what you can.
6) If you regularly use content and that providing site gives you the ability to contribute, do so. For example, if you listen to the “This American Life” podcast, visit their website and give them some money.
7) If you visit a site and you see a link to interesting and legitimate advertising, don’t be afraid to click on it. While I don’t personally like advertising on websites, it is a large source of income for many content providers.
8) If you like a site or service that does not receive contributions, write them an e-mail and ask them to give their users the opportunity to contribute. For instance, if you read a blog three days a week and there is no way to financially support the blogger, ask her to provide a way to support her site.
9) This may be my most creative and crazy suggestion. Pick ten of your favorite providers of free on-line content, whether large corporations or non-profits or individual artists. Get their addresses, and send them some money with a letter (even just a couple of dollars). Tell them that you are sending them this money because you have consumed their content for free, and you believe that they deserve to be compensated for the benefit that they have provided to you. Yes, this is radical. Yes, it is counter-cultural. Remember the story of King David and Araunah in 2 Samuel 24:18-25? David wanted to build an altar on Araunah’s land, so Araunah offered to give him the land for free. But David replied "No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing." (2 Samuel 24:24) Paying for something even when it is offered to you for free is a principle found in this story.
10) Pass this essay on to others. Yet, it is almost 2000 words long. But these ideas may spark thoughtful discussion, dissent, and debate. Even if you totally disagree with what I’m saying, consider engaging with this material.
I invite anyone who would like to thoughtfully discuss these ideas to write to me at Thomas AT ThomasMcKenzie DOT com. You may also visit the original post on my blog at www.ThomasMcKenzie.com. Search "Digital Content" or follow this link: http://tinyurl.com/y34wu72
Respectfully,
Fr. Thomas McKenzie
If you are reading this as a note on facebook, may I recommend you visit www.ThomasMcKenzie.com for the full service version?
12 comments:
I think I take issue with the author's grim view of today's music. In my opinion, the last ten years have brought about some of the most intellectually challenging and musically aware artists that pop music has ever seen, the majority of which have thrived in the indie community that could ONLY exist with the presence of the internet as source of transmission.
The idea that recent music can hardly do more than "rehash" is partially correct, in a good way. The finest and most groundbreaking music is almost always a "rehashing" of previous styles. Weather it was The Second Viennese School of Schoenberg and his pupils rehashing the cultural norms of symphonic composition they had inherited from the first school of Mozart and Beethoven or Louis Armstrong and other early Jazz innovators rehashing the musical forms of ragtime, blues, and new orleans music they had inherited to create a mature and fresh synthesis -- all music is indebted to, and is to an extent defined by what came before it.
I know this essay is about digital rights and the like, but I think the basis of the argument (that art as a whole is in a sorer place because of it's free and rampant exchange via the internet) is flawed and ill-informed because it is based on an unnecessarily negative view of the state of today's music. Just because giant record company's aren't flourishing doesn't mean that there is no longer a place for a music business economy and that we will never hear the next U2.
For the record, I agree that paying for music, and information is good and right. I just think that there is thriving, boundary pushing, historically informed, music world out there, that needs not be undermined in this discussion.
This is a great thing to talk about.
That is a damn fine post, Kyle. Thank you for it.
After reading your post, I realized that I had not made on point very clear, so I added this sentence:
Of course, there are also excellent artists doing excellent work, but these brave souls find themselves in an environment in which it is increasingly difficult (if not impossible) to support themselves on the proceeds of their art.
I do agree that there is good music out there. I should have said that, and I'm glad you encouraged me to say that directly.
The problem is it doesn't make much money. And the music that does make money is still coming almost entirely from the old studio system. I fear we will never have another U2 because the internet economy has been pushing music around for 10 years and has not produced one.
I do disagree that the last ten years have brought about some of the most intellectually challenging and musically aware artists that pop music has ever seen. This is, of course, a matter of taste. But I frankly have not the slightest idea what you are referring to. Maybe because I am ill-informed. Or because I am an old fuddy-duddy. Just seems to me that Beatles (for instance) kick the butt of every band formed in the past decade.
Thank you SO MUCH for commenting!
Duly noted Thomas, we have crossed over into a the subjective realm of musical tastes.
However, I do not think you are ill-informed, or an old fuddy duddy. But because you do not know about the artists that I am talking about (other than the fact that I did not mention them) supports the idea that artists might not achieve U2dom but are able to get their fantastic music to the niche audiences that would have no other way of hearing them other than via the internet. In other words, great music isn't necessarily positively correlated with world-wide acclaim and popularity, and I think that because of the internet, artists whose music would otherwise never see the light of day, can find their fanbase, be appreciated, tour, and make a living (however modest it may be in comparison to U2's) literally solely because of the internet.
Also, I feel like I am arguing a point that I didn't want to. I do not support illegally downloading music, and fully support (in practice and theory) the purchase of music. The only way we can have artists/ art is if an audience supports them. I just think the state of the music industry and thus music as a whole is just DIFFERENT than the old way they taught us in the Mike Curb College of Music Business. It is not WORSE off. Then again, it depends on who you are asking, and what you mean by worse.
Lastly, I have resolved to make you a playlist of artists of the last decade who have (in my opinion) dramatically influence pop music.
Love.
Dear Fr Mc Kenzie,
For some time, an issue happened to me that is related to your essay. I couldn't clear it satisfactorily, so maybe you'll be able to help me.
Is it wrong to rip CD's or downloads (paid for), off a computer, and put them on an iPod ? Should I pay twice for the content, once on CD and once for the download ?
I need the songs' words (written) to understand them better and quicker (therefore I buy CD's most often). But it is easier to put a download on an iPod.
What would you please say about this question, which is still theory to me (I don't own an iPod yet) ?
Thanks for your Christian lights on the matter. I could always ask my brother-in-law, but then, he offered to copy me a CD once (and I'm glad he never did, because my conscience nagged me).
God bless, love and take care.
Yvan Rey
RE: "the last ten years have brought about some of the most intellectually challenging and musically aware artists that pop music has ever seen . . . "
I'd really appreciate a list of those brilliant entries from Kyle.
Great dialog Thomas & all!
dh
Hey Yvan,
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not even a Church lawyer. I'm really not trying to make rules, but to suggest practices that will be a blessing to us and to those whose content we consume.
Also, I never buy CDs. When someone gives me a CD, I always copy the music to my computer for use on my iPod. The CDs usually end up in the trash or in a closet.
I would think that if you have bought a CD, you can personally use the music on it. You can play it in your car, your computer, you iPod. The problem comes when you makes copies of the music and pass it on to others. Or rip the CD, keep the music, then sell the CD down.
Those are my thoughts, anyway. I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Thomas,
While I love the idea of what you are talking about, and it shows your love for Jesus, I think you are being naive.
The ship has sailed. The game is over. Nobody (not even a Christian) is going to pay for something s/he can get for free. Not with near 10% unemployment, many more underemployed and otherwise deeply burdened by the state of the economy. The cost of education, the cost of health care, the cost of retirement, not to mention the cost to pay off debts: all of those concerns will trump the idea of giving money to artists on theological principles.
If I had $50 of disposable income, AND I decided not to save it OR pay off credit cards, OR buy something for you or Ella or Sophie OR go buy a coke, even if I decided to use that $50 charitably, I would give it to an organization like IJM whose efforts to seek justice I can see.
Does this answer or address your question about the decline of "good" art or well researched journalism? No. But for some Christians, the concern for "good" art is not as important as getting to a second or third job on time.
New paradigms. New world. Art survives because God is artistic and He has made us in His image. This techno-electronic-internet age is still developing. Remember that St. Paul, while preaching, also had a job as a tent maker to manage his affairs.
Maybe I am the naive one who thinks that these are growing pains that will work themselves out.
In any case, I love you honey.
Laura
Fr. McKenzie,
This is certainly a good topic to discuss, but I take exception to the fear that you sell throughout the first half of your post. Perhaps I've just been so turned off by the various networks' "news." But whatever receptor I had for the "take action or something you love will die" argument is more callused than Phil Keaggy's fingertips.
As for the content of your message, I agree that digital art / journalism should be supported. I'm no art history buff, but it seems that art has existed and thrived in environments that were not capitalistically based - one could argue, even more so than the recent creative days you fear are gone.
Creativity has an inherent sustainability to the point of nearly having its own distinct personality. It will call on benefactors, the masses, religion, whatever it can to survive and even excel.
I agree we should seek for ways to be those sources for the artists we love, but I do not fear for the future of artistic expression.
Hey T - regarding the question about ripping CDs and re-purposing the files on an mp3 player. Legal, as long as you own the CD. If its your friend's CD, not legal. If it is your wife's CD, legal. If it is your neighbor's CD, not legal.
Fair use is that you and those in your immediate household may copy and use the files/music. Hence, iTunes' new home sharing feature.
J
Many thanks Fr., and J., for clearing (cleaning ?) a question that I had left standing, in a corner of my mind.
Now I'll know what is right to do when the opportunity occurs...
God bless, love and take care.
Yvan Rey
To play devil's advocate for a minute:
I am also a bit of a fuddy duddy and don't follow the emerging indie scene in same way that I used to. That said, I don't hear a lot of the music that is being made that I might really enjoy.
Friends will sometimes give me music that they are enjoying and that they think that I might like. I will stick in on my ipod and listen to it. Here is the twist... If I like it, I will start to follow the band. When the next album comes out I will go out and buy it.
With your 10 digital suggestions, as a Christian I should respectfully decline to accept that music from my friends because it is not rightfully mine. But the result is that the musicians and all the people that help them make their art are losing out on a potential fanatical listener.
An example for me: A friend gave me a CD by Andrew Bird a few years back. I listened to it and loved it. I bought his next two CDs and when he came to town I went to see him live and took my brother along because I thought he would be into the music as well. New we are both fans of the artist. If I had respectfully declined to accept the CD then that would probably not be the case.
Shades of grey? I recently lent someone my legitimately purchased copy of a friend's recent album. I expect to get that CD back from him after he has had some time to listen to it. Is that different for burning a copy for him that he doesn't have to remember to return? Is that different from the 80's/90's practice of making a mix tape for someone? What about if I buy a CD and don't like it and give it to someone that will?
Personally, I think that your are mostly correct. If you are enjoying something that someone toiled to create then they should be compensated. I think my practice should be that if I like something that someone has shared with me then I should purchase it and if I don't I should delete it. I think most artist that don't have the backing of major record labels rely on fans telling friends and making more fans.
And you are right, I shouldn't get annoyed at the NPR fundraisers I should just send them a donation. I always feel guilty about that!
It seems that the dawn of the internet and digital media has majorly privatized our “consumption” and enjoyment of art. The old system of record labels dominating the music business retained shades of the commissioning system of producing art that brought forth the likes of Michelangelo, Mozart, etc. In this system, the artist must first prove him/herself, and if found to be acceptable, is supported by large amounts of money and influence. Thus, the public is well aware of who the great artists are (who is signed), and the enjoyment of their art is very public (pop radio, TV, movies, etc.).
The internet has all but removed that way of thinking. Now the artist’s worth is not determined by those with the money and influence, but by the individual. And the fact that enjoyment of musical art is no longer public is clear by the pride of every true music fan in their various lists of the truly great music out there, only compiled after extensive research. And, on a side note, it seems that the more unknown an artist is these days, the more highly their music is acclaimed by those “in the know.”
All that to say, there has been a paradigm shift in the music business world (and I realize this is only one aspect of what Thomas has essayed about), and I think the best way to be responsible and live righteously within that shift is to embrace the good that comes of it while clearly rejecting the bad. I would offer Noisetrade.com and Briterevolution.com as two excellent examples of music distribution services that attempt just that.
I agree with Thomas’ 10 suggestions and I think they are a faithful Christian contention with the spirit of the age. The one point I would dispute, though, would be the longing for the next U2 or the next Godfather. I think we should continue to celebrate the great art of previous decades and even centuries so that it continues to inspire and shape new generations of artists. But I think a longing for grand scale productions based on an outmoded system is a failure to embrace the good in the new system, and an implicit denial of the potential for transcendence in all art.
Post a Comment