Since taking a course in adult learning over the summer, I pay careful attention to areas of the curriculum that I resist. In light of transformational learning, these points of resistance can actually indicate a disorienting dilemma. This dilemma, often characterized by an argumentative mindset, provides the necessary tension to move forward by challenging habits of mind and creating new understanding (Merriam et al., 2007).
All of this to say that a point of resistance for me in this course has been the concept of free culture. It's not that I don't believe that everyone should have the right to experience the power of art, it's just that I grew up respecting the artist's work. My mom is an artist, and my dad a strong supporter of the arts. We paid for art because we could, and hopefully that money would support the artist and any efforts s/he made to offer their art freely to disadvantaged groups. However, after listening to Jesse Hirsh talk and conversing in a small group in last week's class, I am beginning to wonder if I my views might be outdated. I decided to explore a little further, as research is one of the ways I get beyond resistance.
First, I went to a website called www.freeculture.org and found this video:
I thought it cleverly illustrated what free access to information can achieve. The website seems dedicated to exploring the concept of Open Access Universities. They have a conference in 2010 in Washington, D.C.
In my search, I also came across a book titled Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. Of course, you can get the pdf version for free here, but you can also purchase the book on Amazon, for those who like to pay for art. This book seems to tackle the issue of free art more directly. It's author, a Standford law professor, examines how new copyright laws threaten to stifle the creative potential of the internet. Jesse Hirsh touches on this concept in his latest blog entry titled 'Resisting Internet Orthodoxy.' It's timely that I would refer to Jesse's blog, as his talk to our class provided my first point of resistance, within this course, to the idea of free culture.
I still haven't kicked my belief that if all art is free, artists may become an extinct species. However, by encouraging inquiry into the subject, I am beginning to feel more able to make an informed opinion. No doubt, it will be a topic that becomes more prevalent. I do believe in equitable access to education, and isn't art not one of the oldest forms of knowing, whether through picture, storytelling, music or dance?
On the CBC this week, they talked about the crackdown of Microsoft on Xbox 360 users who had 'tweaked' their consoles to access free online games. The company banned nearly 1 million of their 20 million online gamers. These modded consoles then flood ebay, where buyers are being warned to be careful not to purchase banned consoles. In a situation such as this, I wonder which side I am on. Doesn't Microsoft make enough money? Will banning 1/20 of their online gaming demographic hurt or strengthen their brand identity? Shouldn't these gamers pay like everyone else? As you can see, the issue of copyright in the internet age seems to elicit more questions than answers. If you have any answers, or perhaps more questions, I'd love to know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteGreat thoughts. Like you, I was initially really skeptical about the idea of free, or the concept of 'stealing art' - aka downloading music or movies...
I purchase music from iTunes because I have the means to and because it often provides me with a better quality version of a song or album. I don't use torrents because I don't like the threat of slowing down the computer or getting viruses - not because I think an artist will have to skip meals as a result of my downloads.
My band decided years ago, that we'd pay for our recording time, equipment, etc and give away our disks online and at shows... rather than having us try to peddle our music for $5-10. The results of us doing this, versus our friends selling their music was staggering - we gave away 3-4,000 disks in a summer and our music was known in the indie rock community in Toronto and (a bit) outside of here.
Our goal was to get known as a band. By doing this, we had swallow our pride and recognize that this wouldn't happen as quickly selling an unknown commodity (our disks) at the same price as major artists (it doesn't make sense to the average listener)...
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine posits in his new book, Free: The future of a Radical Price, When scarce resources become abundant, smart people treat them differently, exploiting them rather than conserving them. It feels wrong, but done right it can change the world.
My thoughts.. more knowledge and awareness will make us all smarter; in economic terms (regardless of industry), the best products, ideas will always find a way to make money... stifling opportunity for access to new consumers, or ideas kills creativity and the process ends there.
Jessica: I absolutely empathize with your sentiments on this topic, where one is "on the fence, and uncomfortable to be there". There is a temptation to privilege the “artists” over the “rich corporations” in this argument, but I am sceptical about taking a position simply because I might value high art more than I do corporate ingenuity.
ReplyDeleteYour mention of Microsoft sparked a Google Scholar search, which then led me to a book preview that discusses software rights. I recall the days of BBSing, and the software hacking and trading of the early 90’s that I knew was occurring. (I won’t say how I knew, but I can safely say I wasn’t bright enough to pull this off myself). Anyhow, I recall thinking then how innocent this type of crime must have felt to the offenders. Stealing and trading via a mouse click somehow seemed less sinister than armed robbery or corporate espionage, yet it was still stealing in actual fact.
Perhaps this has stuck with me, because I still feel incredibly uncomfortable downloading music for free, and sleep sounder (in fact) if I have purchased from iTunes or Beatport. I think I have even convinced myself, in some instances, that the sound quality is far better - maybe it is, and maybe it simply rings of less guilt.
I think that Matt is right in his assertion that “ideas will always find a way to make money”, and I think that for this reason I don’t ultimately feel badly for Microsoft in this “free” argument.
Musical artists, however, are another story. I think the discretion of “free” is an individual choice for the artist (or their label), and in some cases is used exclusively for the purpose of interest and marketing.
Pearl Jam, as a point of interest, was a huge advocate of bootleg recordings before becoming huge...and even afterward. Has this impacted their financial success?