The Most Valuable Things in Life are Free
I've discussed a number of times the politics and reality of copyright law in this information age, but I've never really delved into what "free as in beer" media means for the future. Some of you may be familiar with Chris Anderson's recent book Free: The Future of a Radical Price (which ironically, was only available for free as an experiment although the audiobook format is still free), where the author attempts to explain what free means for what is still a paid economy. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow (who does offer his books for free) hits the nail on the head in his review of Free by noting that Anderson fails to consider the the truly radical implications of free. I think the problem is when you think of free as just another price.
What brought me to this topic is a post by driftingfocus about working for free in the creative industry. While I agree with her about "never, ever devalue yourself, your work, or your skills", because giving away your work for free is not always the best individual decision if you want to make a reasonable living off what you do, I have to disagree with the main argument of her post which is "when you work for free, you’re actually hurting the very industries you are hoping to get into." I've most commonly encountered this line of reasoning in relation to open source software, that people lose when things are free because it means that someone prevented from earning a wage by selling the same product. This sort of argument, while seemingly intuitive, is wrong for a number of reasons, specifically the moral and economic ones.
Firstly, this argument has the moral implication that volunteering is a form of theft. That by donating your labour, say to a soup kitchen, you are robbing from those who run cheap restaurants. Besides the patent absurdity of such a claim of ownership of your [non]labour by someone who doesn't even employ you, this line of reasoning is economically wrong, because the inference is that things that are free have no value, or worse that they destroy value. The reality is completely the reverse, because free things create greater value than paid things, because price is always a barrier. The example of open source software is such a perfect example of this. The cost of private software is often a huge barrier to market entry, but free software allows new businesses to get started in producing things of value without paying tens of thousands for necessary licenses.
This where the radical part comes in. Free doesn't mean something cheaper, it means that it has no price. It is outside the market entirely. This is the head scratcher - that something of value cannot actually be monetized. To view that as a threat to paid alternatives is to miss the point, because those who consume it probably won't pay to begin with, even if they have something of value to contribute to our society.
Nobody loses when something is free, because price is always a barrier, that something somewhere cost.
What brought me to this topic is a post by driftingfocus about working for free in the creative industry. While I agree with her about "never, ever devalue yourself, your work, or your skills", because giving away your work for free is not always the best individual decision if you want to make a reasonable living off what you do, I have to disagree with the main argument of her post which is "when you work for free, you’re actually hurting the very industries you are hoping to get into." I've most commonly encountered this line of reasoning in relation to open source software, that people lose when things are free because it means that someone prevented from earning a wage by selling the same product. This sort of argument, while seemingly intuitive, is wrong for a number of reasons, specifically the moral and economic ones.
Firstly, this argument has the moral implication that volunteering is a form of theft. That by donating your labour, say to a soup kitchen, you are robbing from those who run cheap restaurants. Besides the patent absurdity of such a claim of ownership of your [non]labour by someone who doesn't even employ you, this line of reasoning is economically wrong, because the inference is that things that are free have no value, or worse that they destroy value. The reality is completely the reverse, because free things create greater value than paid things, because price is always a barrier. The example of open source software is such a perfect example of this. The cost of private software is often a huge barrier to market entry, but free software allows new businesses to get started in producing things of value without paying tens of thousands for necessary licenses.
This where the radical part comes in. Free doesn't mean something cheaper, it means that it has no price. It is outside the market entirely. This is the head scratcher - that something of value cannot actually be monetized. To view that as a threat to paid alternatives is to miss the point, because those who consume it probably won't pay to begin with, even if they have something of value to contribute to our society.
Nobody loses when something is free, because price is always a barrier, that something somewhere cost.