Billy Bragg nag

So stumbled upon this piece in the NY Times today by Billy Bragg about Bebo’s sale to AOL and the buzz at SXSW music – how musicians can make a living in the Age of the Internet (sic). My immediate thought was, well, you should have come a week earlier to the SXSW interactive bit… My second thought was about something more troubling.

In the piece, Bragg muses about the time Bebo’s co-founder, Michael Birch, came to see him shortly after he had That Spat about residual rights and his music with MySpace. Bebo wanted him help and advice on building an “artist centric platform”.

Bragg is bemoaning that the artists still have had no offer of payment as “thanks” for attracting the community and helping to build something worthy enough of the millions. But I am getting really bored of this.

The reason why is because these platforms, services and “communities” are not all about the professional artist. Yes, music and other parts of popular culture give people social objects to talk around and to build conversations and groups upon. But it is a complex ecosystem. Without the people themselves making the ties, the conversations, the fan art or wom tributes around these artifacts, there would be very little value.

So where do you draw the line? I am reminded of Cory Doctorow’s proclamation that content isn’t king – conversation is. Content just gives people something to talk about.

If Bragg feels he has the right to gain financial reward why can’t the other “sharecroppers”, as Nick Carr puts it?

We hear again and again that service a, application b would be nothing without the cast of community characters who make it so and give it its flavour. Well then, isn’t it about time we/they were recompensed too?

Advertisements

3 responses to “Billy Bragg nag

  1. Ian Betteridge

    Totally. It’s an object lesson in classical economics. If you view the owners of social networks as owners of the means of production/distribution, and the contributors of content (even if that “content” is just a profile) as providers of labour, the picture becomes very clear…

    As I’ve said elsewhere, it is in the economic interests of the owners of means of production to minimise the value of labour: labour is just a cost to them. This is exactly the same pattern that we see with these “new capitalists” – they claim that content is worth (next to) nothing, while their own “networks” are what creates value, and so they should get all the reward.

  2. Heyyyyyy… I would love so much to talk to you. If you have 5 minutes. Vinvin (please)

  3. Content includes conversation; and unless people can see the content they aren’t going to talk about it. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s