Creativity is free

[Cain]

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/11/30/theHollywoodWritersStrike.html

I haven't heard it said in the tech blogosphere that the Hollywood writer's strike cuts right to heart of the philosophy of the entertainment industry and what goes on on the Internet. But it does. It's a classic faceoff, and in this case, the execs, the nemesis of the Internet, seem to be taking the side of the Internet. They can't promise the writers a share of the money they make on the Internet because they don't see how they're going to make money on the Internet. How can you share something that doesn't exist??

When we talk with people from the entertainment industry they explain how they can't just release stuff on the Internet, because they have agreements with the rights holders that assume the realities of the old more restrictive distribution system. Those are the writers.

Now you can see how real the concerns are, when there are real people who express them, and how the execs are in the middle. 

I'm a net native (even though I've heard young people question whether anyone my age can be) and while I appreciate the human concerns, there is no meaningful way to be sympathetic. I'm not going on strike, even though I am a writer. I don't ask to be paid for my writing. I haven't been paid for writing software in a very long time, but I keep doing it. Yet I look in my bank account, and somehow the balance keeps going up. In the end, that's all that matters. 

I don't hold on to a principle that I must be paid for what I do. I look at money as separate from my living. I live through my work. Some of it pays, and it's unfortunately unpredictable what that is. Welcome to the net, welcome to the 21st century.

I heard a report on Nightline how the writers of The Simpsons are producing YouTube videos, and they're funny. Of course they are -- the people who write that show couldn't possibly write something that wasn't. They should keep doing them, I suspect they will.

Never mind how you get from point A to point B, we're going there. Creative work won't be directly paid for in the future. And we're already in that future. Read my essays from the 90s to see how angry this made me. Now the anger has subsided, as a software writer, and it will subside for the Hollywood writers too. This may be the moment when the system breaks. It looks more and more like that.
-------------------------

The question of course is what happens when the system breaks?  If creative enterprises can no longer be made to pay (at least not all the time), what happens instead?

Will creativity become the domain of the rich (rather like essayists of past centuries).  Will artists seek out patrons?  Or will the emphasis shift towards using creative tools merely to market other products?

Personally, I see the third as being most likely.  Content creation has become more and more the packaging, instead of the product.  But that brings with it a whole slew of questions about what happens when art becomes subject to and slavishly beholden to market forces.

Comments?

[LMNO]

I like the idea of creativity being free, but I also like the possibility that I can get paid for what I'm good at and like to do, rather than separate my life into time spent being creative, and time spent trying to survive.



However, I'm currently living the latter life, so...

[Cramulus]

Until the above blog entry, I have read little to nothing about the writer's strike. (I watch very little TV, and since the strike started, I haven't even really been watching Jon and Steven.)

My (safe) bet is that, like most things this century, the forces of change and novelty are going to make everything more complex. I think that art will embody its media. Youtube and youtube-like websites will still exist, and they will carry both professional and nonprofessional videos. TV will still go on, but I think we're going to see a mix of "the writer's get their way" (expanded contracts which include some sort of scalar internet-publishing bonus?) and "fuck the writers" (moar reality tv shows- which don't need writers).

One of the cool things about the net though is that when given the choice between a professional video and some video some kids made in their basement, people don't always choose the more expensive one. ANARCHY!

But the medium has always been the important part. It defines the form your art can take. You can't get your hour-long documentary popular on youtube, because popular youtube videos are less than two minutes long. I think we're going to see more websites which showcase different types of art. If you're an artist who works for a big rich company, your art is going to get the full treatment. If you're some kid with a video camera and a bluescreen, your art is going to have a home somewhere out there too. And the cool thing, again, is that TV no longer has a monopoly on passive-entertainment. In the information age, everyone gets a shot. But not every shot gets the same treatment.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I wouldn't be surprised to see creativity to continue down the path it always has. Creativity spills out of some humans, like Wango Tango juice at a San Francisco Discordian Meetup. Creative people create. Musicians note music, artists paint and draw, poets compose, writers write and the muses lead them all to do this whenever they can. The concept that these people reap continuing benefits for the reuse of their creativity appears only recently in our history. Creative people will create, even if there is no market for their creation (see half the art students from my graduating class as proof). If the muses inspire works that will not be appreciated, how much more simple it will be to inspire works that will be appreciated, but simply aren't marketable in a capitalistic society.

Production Companies, Studios, Producers etc existed only to play the part of the Patron... producing a radio show, television show, movie or album was expensive. The equipment was expensive, the technical expertise was expensive and distribution on any large scale was very expensive. Thus the Patrons aka Cash Cows were necessary. (Note: I must find application for 'Cache Chao' as a Discordian metaphor of some sort). Creative people are suddenly finding themselves in a similar situation as software writers found themselves in the 90's. Computers, software languages and software distribution was no longer an expensive and complex process. People could do what they like (creating) without the constraints of a Patron holding the reins. Over half of the Internet today, runs on software that was freely created by people without a Patron (Linux, Apache, BIND, Sendmail/QMail/Etc, wu-ftp, vsftp etc etc etc).

There was an interesting book at the turn of the century called "The Hacker Ethic". The author put forward a concept that we were seeing the rise of a new work ethic. The common work ethic, "the Protestant Work ethic" is, in his view, based on the concept of lowly man, doing right by God and putting in 40 hours of work for his daily bread. Liking your work has nothing to do with it... you work for money, you suffer the crappy job because you're a sinner and this is how you earn your keep (how vastly different that mindset from what our forefathers must have had). The author's view was that the "hacker ethic" was a philosophy based on working on what you like (no matter the recompense), their work is their play, their play is the production of a creative work. Even if they have day jobs in computer programming, their actual creativity shines in the "hobby" aspect of their art. Once the creative work finds a niche, an audience, a market of some sort... the creator is often brought along with the work.

PayPal and 'tipjars', have led to people that make their entire living from blogging (Michael Totten has traveled to the Middle East several times on nothing more than a tip jar and support from his blog readers)... writing directly to the public and getting paid directly by the public that supports their work. It can't be long before someone simply replaces the blog entries with weekly installments of sitcoms, dramas and animations developed with home equipment (that rivals the studio equipment of 15 years ago). Once people are directly paying the artists, studios, Producers etc will probably get relegated to whatever they can maintain on Cable and the big blockbuster movies (No one will be doing PJ quality "Lord of The Rings" in Flash... oh, what an idea!).

I find it interesting to compare this with Bob's theories described in the RICH economy. A Leisure class that doesn't deal with manual labor, but instead spends their free time creating or learning about new kinds of work etc. Of course, his model included government subsidies for everyone and robots, but the general idea of a large segment of the population that has the spare time necessary to be creative (and the necessary tools easily available) seems quite interesting to me.

I don't know what would happen if all of our news eventually came from Blogs (ick!) or if all of our television came from YouTube and our music from a bands MySpace page... but it may well break something.

[Diseris]

Sounds like a good way for the execs to push for more control of the internet through their locally bought elected officials.  If the problem is that there is no money from internet broadcasts, the obvious solution is to make sure that revenue can be collected from the viewers.  This may entail blocking countries and IP's which harbor pirates  as well as more rigorous enforcement of copyrights.  In the current political environment of protectionism outweighing the forces of liberty, at least in the US, it seems that a greater emphasis on copyright protection would be more likely to come out of our leaders than letting go of age old profits.  If this does not come directly from the government, private industry may itself decide to put together another group like the RIAA to ensure the rights of the larger companies are protected.

So if you're creative and in with the big shots, you will be paid and your rights enforced while the rest of us toil for other rewards and hope to make the rent a different way...

  Then there will always be the copyright cats who will copyright your hard work and protect it under the skirts of the big media players

[Cain]

True.

I mostly worry that creativity may not be commerically viable unless it is "in tune" with the current pop culture, meaning only the producers of that really get any reward.  You can see it already, kinda, with the empahsis on formulaic pop, r'n'b and hiphop.  Backing most other acts, if they don't already sound like successful acts, is just too risky with the lower capital resources.  It could lead to a real cultural stagnation, if creativity is limited by market forces.

[LMNO]

In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

[B_M_W]

In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

That seems like a Law of Fives in action.

[Diseris]

I wouldn't be surprised to see creativity to continue down the path it always has. Creativity spills out of some humans, like Wango Tango juice at a San Francisco Discordian Meetup. Creative people create. Musicians note music, artists paint and draw, poets compose, writers write and the muses lead them all to do this whenever they can. The concept that these people reap continuing benefits for the reuse of their creativity appears only recently in our history. Creative people will create, even if there is no market for their creation (see half the art students from my graduating class as proof). If the muses inspire works that will not be appreciated, how much more simple it will be to inspire works that will be appreciated, but simply aren't marketable in a capitalistic society.

I mostly worry that creativity may not be commerically viable unless it is "in tune" with the current pop culture, meaning only the producers of that really get any reward.  You can see it already, kinda, with the empahsis on formulaic pop, r'n'b and hiphop.  Backing most other acts, if they don't already sound like successful acts, is just too risky with the lower capital resources.  It could lead to a real cultural stagnation, if creativity is limited by market forces.

I'm not sure that creativity can be limited by market forces directly, but indirectly the market could play a large role.  By limiting what is available for synthesis, otherwise known as inspirational material, the market narrows down the breadth of what can be produced, i.e., an artist who hears only one other artist in a lifetime will be hard pressed to come up with something completely original.  Most likely the format, instruments and styles will be some evolution of the original artist and be recognizeably similiar.  On the other hand, an artist who is exposed to many different styles has more to pick and choose from and can offer a wider range of creative synthesis. 

So, with this being added

In addition, I've reached the aprt in Black Swan about how the Matthew effect, which applies to pop culture, as well.  The more people pay attention to something, the more it feeds itself.  It also seems like there's an upper limit of popular things/bands/artists/producers that the public can focus on at any one time.

and the addition that with a limit of popular focus items a lot of smaller market will be lost/forgotten/unexposed, it seems that the idea pool will become smaller, thereby making creation less esoteric and more formula driven.  The result?  A bunch of crap that all looks/sounds relatively familiar and similiar.   Listen to the radio lately?  Its oldies vs theoneband and art is popularly represented by giant pictures of sports heroes and posterized images.  There is more and better out there, but you have to take it upon yourself to get outside of your ordinary influences as big media will keep sending the same crap down the line as long as it sells.

[Cain]

Good points.  And I know exactly what you mean by radio, in the UK almost every local radio station is owned by one of two large companies, who have exactly the same playlists.  You can flick through several stations and here the same song on all of them.  That's what worries me, that everything else will get shoved to the margins and UK radio style culture becomes the norm.

Of course, some would say it has already happened.

[LMNO]

Suddenly, the "What are you listening to right now" thread becomes surprisingly relevant and useful.

[Cain]

Indeed.

Also, on a very similar train of thought is this, http://thepiratesdilemma.com/about-the-book

The Pirate's Dilemma tells the story of how youth culture drives innovation and is changing the way the world works. It offers understanding and insight for a time when piracy is just another business model, the remix is our most powerful marketing tool and anyone with a computer is capable of reaching more people than a multi-national corporation.

Do we fight pirates, or do we learn from them?

Ideas that started within punk, disco, hip-hop, rave, graffiti and gaming have been combined with new technologies and taken to new heights by the generations that grew up under their influence. With a cast of characters that includes such icons as The Ramones, Andy Warhol, Madonna, Russell Simmons, Pharrell and 50 Cent, The Pirate's Dilemma uncovers, for the first time, the trends that transformed underground scenes into burgeoning global industries and movements, ultimately changing life as we know it, unraveling some of our most basic assumptions about business, society and our collective future.

As a result people, companies and organizations are now struggling with a new dilemma in increasing numbers. As piracy continues to change the way we all use information, how should we respond? Do we fight pirates, or do we learn from them? Should piracy be treated as a problem, or a solution? To compete or not to compete - that is the question – that is the Pirate's Dilemma, perhaps one of the most important economic and cultural conundrums of the 21st Century.

[Diseris]

As a result people, companies and organizations are now struggling with a new dilemma in increasing numbers. As piracy continues to change the way we all use information, how should we respond? Do we fight pirates, or do we learn from them? Should piracy be treated as a problem, or a solution? To compete or not to compete - that is the question – that is the Pirate’s Dilemma, perhaps one of the most important economic and cultural conundrums of the 21st Century.

However it goes, the pirates are going to have to find a way to feed themselves without drawing too much attention.  The ways that monetary transactions can be tracked, especially net related transactions, would seem to make piracy a diminishing avenue to wealth rather than an expansive enterprise. 

On the other hand, failing economies will leave little wealth to be used for luxuries like entertainment, taking the money out of entertainment production while leaving the huddled unemployed masses with little to do aside from hunt for food and find new and innovative ways to entertain themselves, and everything is open-source if you have nothing to lose.  Could lead to a wild expansion of great starving artists and dead poets.

[Cain]

Anonymous internet banking backed by financial institutions with their own currency may be a future step in the right direction.  Currencies can exist purely electronically, after all, it's just a matter of finding a place that will allow the "anonymous" part to happen.

[Triple Zero]

Anonymous internet banking backed by financial institutions with their own currency may be a future step in the right direction.  Currencies can exist purely electronically, after all, it's just a matter of finding a place that will allow the "anonymous" part to happen.

assassination politics ?