In all the arguments over copyright and patents the interests of the middle class creator are constantly invoked, then discarded.
The fact is that, while most western countries are middle class, the structure of their creative classes is pre-Marxist. That is there are a few writers, artists, musicians and actors who get rich from it, and a lot who get virtually nothing.
Unless you have business acumen, or constant success in your field, you're very likely to end up poor. And without a big hit, you're nearly certain to end up relatively poor from your work in the content industries.
At the same time, those who manage the industry, whether or not they have any talent, nearly all wind up rich.
Thus there's a difference between what we find in society as a whole and the content society.
The goal of public policy, also known as democracy, should be to create a larger middle class, because that's where stability comes from. This should also be the goal of negotiations regarding content, both patent and copyright, to assure that the fruits of heavy labor are spread as fairly as possible.
In fact what we increasingly see is society mirroring the appearance of the content industry, with a small coterie of super-wealthy presiding over an increasingly-strangled populace.
This is not a recipe for stability. History shows this status quo is not sustainable even for the rich. It is in fact a recipe for class war. And war of any kind is unhealthy for everyone.
The content industry can become a model for the rest by finding market solutions for the problems of the mid-market. We need to find ways to change the income distribution of content wealth without actually playing Robin Hood.
There are mechanisms. All rights contracts are negotiated. Many rights are balanced among groups, not just individuals. A little lean toward creators in those negotiations, including those in the middle class, as a counterweight against the wealth of the publishers can result in a better balance.
All that is needed for this to happen is for rhetoric to become reality. Record companies constantly cry about how they are fighting for "the artists," but when you look at the resulting contracts the artists are universally screwed while the companies continue to gain greater-and-greater wealth. This is mirrored in all the other content industries.
It's a vital lesson of our parent's generation, one that ours has fogotten. Satiation and stability go hand-in-hand.
Most people, including artists, are capable of satiation. That is, once we gain a comfortable lifestyle, with our retirement assured and our childrens' education provided for, we tend to relax and enjoy things. This is at the core of societal stability, people satisfying higher-level needs because their lower level needs are sated.
But there are some people who are insatiable. Some are insatiable for drugs, others for fame, still others for money. These people like to claim that they "earn" their drugs, fame, and money, that they are the real creative class and that unless they are allowed to continue gaining in wealth, fame and power over others society won't advance.
Bunk. Poor man want to be rich, rich man want to be king, and a king ain't satisfied until he rules everything. That's not a recipe for progress.
As I said, the content industries can be a model for this because the industry is defined by contracts, contracts freely entered into among rights holders and contracts between creators and publishers.
Unless a better formula is negotiated you won't get a united front against piracy, with consumers as well as creators fully participating. A better deal for content's middle class, in other words, is in everyone's interests.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brad Hutchings on March 25, 2005 02:19 PM writes...
At the same time, those who manage the industry, whether or not they have any talent, nearly all wind up rich.
This is not true. For example, track down the people who organized and promoted Woodstock (I know one). They didn't up rich. It is a rough business.
Dana, your post is just a more intellectual sounding version of the day-to-day "screw-the-man" screed written by any random 19-year-old on Slashdot. Give that kid 10 years of working with content/software companies, seeing how piracy affects his (likely middle class) paycheck, and his attitude will change. If not, juries aren't sympathetic to 30 year old pirates.
Permalink to Comment2. Jesse Kopelman on March 25, 2005 04:54 PM writes...
Brad, track down the people who promoted Woodstock 2. Of course, being major corporations they were already rich. But, considering they did a Woodstock 3, I bet they got richer. Why do you keep using the first Woodstock as an example of the music industry? Despite being a great historical cultural event, it was a complete failure in terms of the original business vision. Anyway, people are making money off of it now with compilation albums, DVDs, and documentaries on television. Watch any episode of behind the music and there will be a segement about how the artist fought to get out of their first contract which was leaving them in debt despite selling millions of albums. "Screw the man" is the greatest concept in the history of humanity. Without it, we would all still be living in caves.
Permalink to Comment3. Brad Hutchings on March 26, 2005 06:23 PM writes...
Grrrrrr... Can anyone respond to a comment without completely blowing the context out of proportion? Dana said that those who manage the industry nearly all wind up rich. I used an example of specific people who didn't "end up rich" through their organization and management of one of the most significant events in the history of the music business. Jesse concludes "of course people got rich". I bet even the people behind "Behind the Music" get rich. I bet they even have drug problems and bad contracts and I bet someday we'll see an ironically self-referential "Behind the Music Behind the Music". So what?
Almost everyone I know who relies of copyright or patents to make a living (and this is admitedly software centric) falls under the broad brush "middle class" if that matters. These are mostly independent people, business owners, and the like who expect to get paid when someone uses their products. Many organize into corporations (yes, the evil "c" word), LLCs, partnerships, etc. in order to collaborate. Freedom of association is first ammendment too, you know, and there are many legally recognized ways for individuals to organize to conduct their economic affairs. To subscribe the Blankenhorn/Slashdot view of copyright/patents as a tool of the rich to screw the middle class is to ignore what is really going on. "Long tail", people. It isn't just about books.
And anyway, invoking "class" in production issues of the mind, in a society where a great percentage of adults have college educations and most are at least high school graduates is as silly as any Marxist can possibly get. You do not have to grow up privileged to write a great song, a great book, great software. Today, you just need a little business savvy to turn that creation into a living, and lots of people actually do.
Permalink to Comment4. Lindon on March 28, 2005 08:14 PM writes...
Brad, I think a concert is a poor model to use as an example of the music industry but let’s use it anyway. Let’s look at who did/did-not get rich at Woodstock, and importantly as a result of Woodstock:
Clearly(you tell us) the organisers did not, and as Jesse alludes this was because of a "poor business model" (letting people in for free...altruistic and great as it may have been). As a result of the concert and associated film the artists DID get rich, John Sebastian got WAY richer than he ever dreamed, Hendrix got rich, Jefferson Airplane got rich, and so did there record companies, and here's the crucial point: they got DISPROPORTIONALLY rich compared to their peers in the content business.
This is no different to the current structure. Sony Records get richest, Madonna gets very rich but Snow Patrol(an indie signed band) get only subsistence wages, and Joe-Unsigned doesn't even get that.
I think the point is there is too much inequity in the current system, and I think restructuring contracts between Snow Patrol + Sony Records is part of the deal, but such a specific relationship restructure must also apply to Madonna + Sony Records too... which just makes Madonna richer, so not a real solution there..This equity thing is tricky.
Permalink to Comment