Creative Commons

Maybe I have been living under a rock... I had never heard of Magnatune. I have to say, I'm impressed. It's one of those things that I feel was bound to happen. I have had a lot of great ideas in my day. And, seriously, who doesn't want to get paid for their ideas? If I could make a living just inventing things, or writing, or in any way just putting my creative juices to work, well, that would be great.

Pre-internet, though, it was pretty much inevitable that you would have to get someone to invest in whatever it was you were trying to produce in order to have it made, whether it was an album, a book, a magazine or some great new product, someone with money had to decide that they thought it was good enough to be made.

Nowadays, I'm finding my writing all over the internet. I found a paper the other day on a website called Scribd. It was probably me who put it there, but I don't remember putting it up and the site didn't recognize any of my e-mail addresses. A bit of a cause for concern maybe, though I was credited as the author... But that paper had had over 70 reads! I mean, even though I am concerned about who it was that published it (still it may have been me and I just forgot, or someone found a collection of my work at one of my ePortfolios and just decided to post it there) I can hardly be mad to know that so many people are reading my work.

That, I think, is what is great about creative commons. I never expected to make any money off of that paper. In fact, the only thing I ever expected to come of it was a good grade, maybe it would catch the attention of a prospective employer. But it is being read, and who knows, maybe even used as a source for ideas for similar papers by other college students. And that, as far as I can tell, is exactly what CC is all about. It's about sharing your work, for the sheer joy of sharing your work.

As far as the music industry is concerned, it was only a matter of time. The concept of "you decide if an how much to pay me for my music" is as old as bards and troubadours. So, really, the business model was already there. The internet allowed street and would-be musicians to actually share their music, their music, without sycophantically abasing themselves to the big label executives. One has only to look at the stories of American Idol contestants to see how a very handsome opportunity can be the devil in disguise.

" Archuleta... was forced to cancel a 'Thank You' concert [in Salt Lake City]. It was to be this Friday night and the proceeds were to go to charity. But American Idol nixed the whole thing because of Archuleta's "contractual obligations" to the show."-Johns, 2008

"Mario Vazquez... quit the show reportedly because of the contract that, among other things, wouldn't let him sign any deals until at least three months after the winner was crowned."-Johns, 2008

The music industry is, of course, not the only culprit of such ridiculous rules and obligations. They are only perhaps the most notorious, due to law suits with those who would try to bypass their rules, from big time companies like Napster to 12-year-old girls.

Perhaps I've run on a bit, maybe even gotten a bit off topic... But when it comes down to it, artists, writers and creative persons of any medium need to be able to have control of their own ideas. I think, in my limited knowledge of the subject, that Creative Commons is a fantastic idea. It allows people to share the things they create, and, if you ask me, it signifies a new age when money is not the ultimate goal anymore. It tells artists that it is ok to create and share their work. Furthermore, instead of being shut down by a handful of people at a label or a publishing house, it is a way for people to see, and feel good about the fact, that 70+ people have read/downloaded/been inspired by their creation.

Now that's what I call freedom.

Thanks,
Katie May