ditorial

Digital Rights - The Revolution of the Arts

<< previous 1, 2, 3, 4 next >>

An Open Source Community
nformation sharing is not a new concept. The digital age has simply made sharing fast, inexpensive, and global. Search engines, web pages, file sharing—the Internet as a whole—have connected the world in an exceptional way, opening our society to a new way of viewing and experiencing the world.

Supporters of the open source movement have long been advocates of information sharing as a tool for the betterment of all, rather than a select few. In computer software, this can mean the difference between paying a large fee for a product such as Microsoft Office vs. no fee for a comparable product, such as Open Office. In addition, open source means that the code that generated the software is viewable to anyone who may be interested—meaning that the product can be improved by anyone with the necessary skills. (The General Public License, or GPL, is currently the most successful attempt to legally enforce this concept.) In a closed source system, the source code is just that—closed. Improvements can be made only by specific people and the benefits reaped only by those able to pay for it. This is, in large part, the point to modern-day copyright. Copyright ensures that the creator of a product, idea, or artistic creation has the sole right to benefit or profit from that product, idea, or creation. In open source, everyone benefits, but the question of profit is less clear-cut. In closed source, only a select few (those who can pay the fee) will benefit, and only those directly involved will profit.

Open source does not necessarily guarantee a better product, but it is important to remember that the same can apply to a product that is closed source—and in a closed system, you can only rely on those on the inside to fix what is broken. The term open source can suggest more than just an open "source code." An open system is one that, though seemingly vulnerable, is also one more likely to evolve.

Perhaps the benefits of an open source system are easier to see in the case of computer software or patentable products, but the rewards become more difficult to understand when it comes to the arts and other creative endeavors. How can a story or piece of music be open source? More importantly, how could an author or artist protect their sole right to benefit or profit from their work if it can be downloaded for free?

Exposed vs. Exposure
An important thing for new authors, and artists in general, to remember is that exposure is crucial if the goal is to develop an audience and/or profit from the work. Consider again the way that the majority of consumers purchase new books and music.

In most cases, the books and music that we choose have been presented to us through a careful dance of promotion and marketing. This means that new or beginning authors, especially those choosing to self-publish, will get very little notice in the places where it counts. Consider how often we are willing to try a new author or artist whose work we have not previously read or heard. The cost need not even be high, simply comparable to something we already know we would most likely enjoy. (It is always easier to spend money on something you have prior experience with than something you know almost nothing about.)

The Internet and the advent of self-publishing have gone a long way toward the circumvention of traditional publishing houses in getting things published, but unless you are already a successful print author, it is very difficult to get the exposure that is necessary to reach the public. In this case, a free or cheaply priced book (or a large preview of the work) can be an excellent move. Giving authors the chance to build their own reputation can be crucial in gaining an audience, and there is a growing movement towards doing just this.

This is where the subject gets difficult, as most authors, myself included, dream of nothing more than quitting their jobs and supporting themselves full time through their work as an author. How can this be done if you are giving your work away for free?

Hopefully, the work would not always be free. Once a reader or artist has built up a following, ideally based on the strength of the quality of the work, then reasonable fees can be charged for downloads of print copies. Although this may seem as if it would take us back to square one, with people simply stealing the work, as in the case of Stephen King, the hope is that the new mindset created with a new system will encourage a different digital atmosphere—the new system being one built on rediscovering value. This goes back to the idea that audiences will be willing to pay for quality, conscientious work through their love of the work or through their respect of the creator. (A few news sources reported that some readers actually sent King more than the amount requested for their download of The Plant in order to compensate for those who would not get the point.)

Yet, in some cases, those who find themselves stealing software or music have done so, not out of a sense of anarchy or a lack of understanding the principles behind value but out of frustration at a system that seems comfortable with reducing quality and inflating prices. Sampling material through resources such as KaZaA in order to gauge its usefulness or level of quality seems to be the reason that more otherwise conscionable people find themselves downloading a variety of file types. One has to wonder whether publishers and producers alike have forgotten the value of allowing consumers to preview material or if it is simply the last line of defense against diminishing quality and original content.

<< Previous| 1, 2, 3, 4 |Next - Exposed vs. Exposure cont.>>

Return to Articles

Posted January 15, 2004
©2004