Napster, open source, and why artists create

This Tech Talk column originally appeared in The Exponent (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Vol. 32, No. 11 (November 9, 2000). Digitized issue: UAH LOUIS archive. Reproduced here courtesy of that archive.

Napster struck a deal with Bertelsmann, a media big dog, and will become a subscription-based service. Bertelsmann is happy and encouraging other recording industry players to get on the bus because they’ll be getting a cut of Napster’s action. Bertelsmann and Napster must read my column because I outlined exactly that solution a few weeks back. Cool.

Some people (primarily those who gave us the six degrees of separation) say that there are only about fourteen basic story lines in all human literature, and every new book or movie probably fits one of those story lines after a few tweaks. If you’re sick of hearing about the story, this particular instance of it will probably be over soon, but history will repeat itself again soon. The form, in this case, is the invention of some new technology that makes distribution of creative work simpler, followed by protests of “no one will want to make these creative works because the evil technology is robbing them of the ability to make a living.”

We saw the trend with Napster and FM radio and cassette tapes: “the new technology removes any incentive for artists to make music.” The claim is obviously false because the world is full of musicians despite Napster, FM radio, and cassette tapes. It also represents an unsound argument because the underlying assumption is that artists make music because they can make money at it. The fame and fortune are certainly appealing, but I can’t play guitar like Jimi Hendrix or rhyme like E-40 or dance like MC Hammer or bare my soul like Joan Baez or inspire ladies onstage like Tom Jones. Making music, like so many other callings, requires gifts. There are a fortunate few, like artists and athletes, whose gifts people are willing to pay money to experience.

Think of the last class you really enjoyed. Would you say that the instructor taught the class strictly for the money? When I think of classes that I loved, I think of great instructors. Anyone can present interesting material in a boring way, but it takes skill to deliver information interestingly. Invariably, all the instructors were fascinated by the subject or committed to helping everyone learn. I couldn’t say that any of them were there just to collect a paycheck.

Another field that has seen the doomsday argument is the software world. Bill Gates was one notable proponent when he sent his infamous letter to computer clubs accusing them of stealing and bringing about the demise of the software industry. When measured in dollars, Bill’s prediction was off by hundreds of billions. When the subjects of free software and open source software come up, someone inevitably suggests that no one will program if software is free. The assertion is pure bunk. There would be no Internet and no World Wide Web if there were no free software. According to Netcraft, Apache is the web’s most popular server. A big part of Apache’s appeal is its free availability, but that doesn’t convey the whole picture. Apache delivers quality that its proprietary counterparts, like Microsoft’s Internet Information Server, can’t touch. The free model and the open source model work, and they often beat the closed, proprietary model.

Being a software developer, I have seen how giving away software can create value. As the number of users grows, quality also improves. Most importantly, sharing software will only increase the demand for software developers, and that makes me happy.

Coming from this environment, the RIAA’s complaints look shortsighted or disingenuous. Recorded music is, after all, software. It’s a sequence of instructions for a machine to sound this frequency for this duration, then that frequency for that duration. I’m not trying to belittle the creative process or talents necessary to make music any more than I’m trying to do the same to the process of writing software. My point is that sharing music generates value. If you watched the MTV Video Music Awards: “I borrowed [this Metallica shirt] from a friend, and I’m thinking of buying one for myself.”

Here again, I’m a deluded Don Quixote taking aim at the windmills. The recording industry goodfellas are getting their cut, so nothing will change. This will come up again as soon as bandwidth isn’t the limiting reactant in sharing digital movies.