The Price of "Free"

The popularity of the Digital Revolution has changed how we as consumers interact with media and culture. While it has provided the opportunity to connect and share content between users, it presents complications in its difficulty to limit the same access it affords. Internet piracy truly began to pervade consumer culture through the inception of Napster-Era mp3 sharing in 1999. It posed a radically disruptive market force to multiple industries. If you provided a good or service that was accessible digitally, you were vulnerable.

No sense of brand loyalty or savings competes against pro gratis. Revenue streams tightened as physical media formats declined, and products essentially became free thanks to peer-to-peer services like LimeWire and Torrent websites. Any person with a basic understanding of computers could download and access software, music, or films under the relatively anonymous veil of the internet at no cost. This revolution occurred in the backdrop of a gravely inadequate and uninformed response by public policy makers, hopelessly watching

the evolution and emergence of new technologies, which rapidly outpaced their ability to enforce, legislate, and contain them. The film industry scrambled to roll out counter measures in the form of inescapable Public Service Announcements tied to DVDs, likening the abominable act of downloading movies to that of car theft—see YouTube video “You Wouldn’t Steal A Car.” A plethora of severely out of touch and cringe-inducing propaganda campaigns followed, including hip slogans such as ‘Don’t Copy That Floppy’ by MC Double Def DP. These advertisements failed to reach the moral conscious of youth, and did not prevent the tide of piracy that chewed away at companies’ profits. On the brink of collapse for many of the marginalized, to sink or swim became the question. So as profits shrank, the actors within these markets adjusted. The twilight of the linear, pipeline business models neared, spelling the widespread adoption of platform-based models. This shift has shaped the way we live today. For years, we lived in a bygone era of manually downloading and organizing our music through cumbersome, inefficient processes. Streaming services have since remedied the issues of accessibility and inefficiency by unionizing and consolidating music media, and upselling the former points of sale. Even in the face of competitor savings, consumers identify brand loyalty with the convenience they have when they remain subscribed. If pop culture history has proven anything, it is that people ultimately value accessibility over ownership. While this piece appears to be an aggregate pro-consumer push, it is important to consider the ramifications on the supply side. The price of “free” has meant the gradual shrinking of ground beneath the feet of artists and relative industry firms alike. Wealth is considerably concentrated in the hands of top artists, whereas newer and less successful ones see only trickles of rewards from their labours. While the Internet Age has allowed artists greater liberty in connecting users to their products, many still face the traditional problems of undercapitalization in lieu of concrete revenue streams. Therefore, when labels offer to facilitate their growth, some artists may engage, but often at the expense of their creative direction, intellectual property, or long-term monetary compensation. In such a vulnerable occupation, many artists cannot afford to wait for mainstream traction in the long run, so they sign the dotted line in favour of the short. Ultimately, the artist’s deal determines how they can make a livelihood. This is not a problem which exclusively hinders the music industry, but it serves as a more present example in this shifting technological and economic landscape. It is important to consider what is practical and what is normative in all industries, considering these transformative changes.

Is it naïve to believe that ‘freemium’ platforms like Facebook can support their considerably expansive cost structure without ad revenue? We often forget that we live in an age of constraint and scarcity, but would society be willing to pay for a service such as Instagram or Twitter? If conditions for artists are truly this problematic, then society’s willingness to support the services which exploit our idols and muses is advocating against their success. As consumers, do we owe some sense of responsibility in embracing piracy, only to transition to newer models that are only marginally less exploitative than before? Bearing the consequences in mind, we should not be so readily accepting of people attaining something for nothing while preaching ethical consumerism. I don’t think I’ll ever catch myself nostalgically reminiscing over LimeWire viruses, Walkmans, and hiding pornographic magazines from my mom. But there is something to be said regarding the agency we once afforded ourselves in both creating and digesting content. Free is but an abstract naivety—someone always pays the price.

by Julian Fraser