Why music CAN be "just free"- part 2

Last month, I posted about why music can be "just free."

I thought I'd follow that up with some news about Amazon's top selling MP3 albums of last year; topping the charts was the Nine Inch Nails album, "Ghosts I-IV."

You might not have heard of it; as it was self-published, it wasn't released with the usual promotion and marketing efforts (only being announced on the day of release.) It wasn't released in record shops. It was available to download, but wasn't available in iTunes. But most interestingly, it was released under a Creative Commons licence.

What that means is that the artist decided not to sell the copyright to his music on to a record label, giving them exclusive permission to copy and sell the music in exchange for a share of the money. Instead, it gives anyone who receives a copy the right to copy it themselves. In other words, it would be perfectly legal to log on to a file sharing network (even one that's full of illegal copies of copyrighted materials) and download a copy of the album for free. It would also be legal to take that copy and use it as the soundtrack to a film you make, or to remix it, sample it or generally do whatever you like with it. The only restrictions are that it has to be attributed (any copy or remix etc. has to credit Nine Inch Nails for the original work), it can only be used for "non-commercial" use (ie. you wouldn't be allowed to download the album, burn it to a CD and sell it), and anything that you make using it has to be released under a similar free licence ("share-alike.")

The obvious questions is why would anyone buy something that they can get for free?

There are plenty of answers (enough for a seperate post- or even a whole book), but three things need to be recognised; Firstly, that people aren't necessarily paying for the product; for the pieces of information that make up a piece of digitally recorded music. They pay to support the artist, to know that they have the "real deal", to get it quickly and conveniently, from a trusted source.

Secondly, that even though the "content" might be free, the container might be worth paying for. Which is why the album was released in a number of formats— from a paid-for download (still carrying the freedom to copy etc.) to a CD, a vinyl record, right up to a $300 limited edition box set with CD, Blu-Ray and vinyl versions of the records, limited edition prints, art book, multitrack studio files (and, of course, access to the downloadable version.) Limited to 2,500, these sold out in a matter of weeks.

But thirdly, there is the point that there are three things that can happen if you let people share your "content"; either they can decide that they don't like it, and don't buy it, in which case nothing is lost other than the "potential customer's" time. Or they can decide that they like it, and will buy it— which is a "gained sale." Or they can decide that they like it, but they aren't going to buy it because they have got it for free- which is a "lost sale." The theory being (which time and again, case studies like this one will verify) that there are more sales gained than lost through these kinds of "free" releases.

So that's 2,500 box sets at $300 each- along with the sales from the $75 box set, the CD version, the vinyl version. And of course, the Amazon MP3 sales that topped their download charts. All for "free" music— not "name your own price for a limited time" low-quality audio downloads, not "free if you buy this newspaper" CDs, but a "properly" free piece of music. Music that you can share with your friends, recommend that they buy it if they like it (but let them see if they like it first), use to soundtrack your YouTube videos or practice their remixing skills with.

Not bad going for an instrumental album…