It has become a truism that the structure of the music industry is antiquated and that it can’t survive in its present form. That is all well and good, but how are artists supposed to make their living (which they must in order to make the music we love) without becoming, in some way, part of that industry?
Creative Commons (www.creativecommons.org), an Internet non-profit, has articulated a surprising and radical view of what this might look like by advocating the freedom of creative work, which can be altered, used, shared and even commercially used by others. Artists with a Creative Commons license allow their music to be shared and used freely for other projects as long as they are given attribution as the original creator.
The corporation provides free, ready-made licenses in complex legalese that makes this possible under current copyright laws and, increasingly, musicians are making use of these licenses to disseminate their music and build creative dialogues with their fans and other artists.
One of the best examples of the promise of Creative Commons for creativity in music is Indaba Music, an online community that makes collaborative music using the Web site’s tools, which is then shared under Creative Commons attribution licenses to other users who can then build on it. This creates an environment that is more than just a dialogue — it is a place where artists can join together to create art across the normal boundaries of time and space.
It’s not just computer and music nerds getting in on the action at Indaba, either. Creative Commons-based remix contests on the site have featured work by Rivers Cuomo of Weezer and the Crystal Method, among others. These contests have been excellent publicity boosters for Indaba and for Creative Commons, but perhaps more importantly, they’ve provided fans and other musicians a way to contact the music of these “mainstream” artists in ways that are otherwise legally impossible.
Still, the question remains, how can artists support themselves in a Creative Commons world? It’s all well and good for people to make music for their own entertainment on Indaba or for established artists to connect with their fans through this service, but how is a musician who makes his music freely shareable under the Creative Commons licenses able to make any money to fund their art?
Well, consider the file-sharing debacle that continues to plague the music industry. Artists are already finding their music shared for free online, outside their control. Rather than attempt to kill music piracy, as the RIAA has done, it might be better to embrace sharing and develop a business model appropriate for the post-Napster world.
Jonathan Coulton, a self-described “Internet superstar,” has demonstrated that such a model is possible, if not preferable, for emerging acts. Coulton quit his day job as a computer programmer in 2005 to try his hand at becoming a musician. Since then, he has become something of a niche sensation, packing concert spaces around the country (including the nearby Birchmere Music Hall).
Recently, he has been quietly showing up in all kinds of places. The geek-turned-rock star has written bit songs for the Daily Show, composed the theme song for the Valve video game Portal, has songs for download on Rock Band and has been profiled in a number of media outlets including the New York Times Magazine and Popular Science (for which he once provided a hysterical issue soundtrack).
All of Coulton’s music is released under Creative Commons licenses. While you can buy any of his CDs in its fancy packaging (with that license) from various online retailers or from Coulton himself, almost all of his music is available to download, free of charge, from his Web site. This only works, of course, because he is not signed to a label and owns his music entirely in his own right.
This doesn’t seem like a very good business model. Who will pay for something that they can get for free? The truth, as it turns out, is that a lot of people will pay for something they love despite it being available for free (I admit to having been one of these people). Coulton makes a living because people attend his live shows in droves. But people also reward his creative output by buying his discs even when they don’t have to. There will always be freeloaders, but there will also always be those who want to contribute to his art.
In fact, in this model, Creative Commons may be neutralizing that old saw of “selling out.” Coulton never has to sell out: as long as people continue to love his music, he can reach an ever-growing audience through Creative Commons sharing. That’s the artistic (and monetary) value of “sharing,” that banal concept drummed into you way back in preschool.
You can reach this columnist at thescene@theeagleonline.com.
