Don't get me wrong, I'm all for open music & sharing with the public the art that I have to offer the world. In today's new media, it seems almost like a necessity for musicians to attend to this option and then focus on getting by with another job, concerts, something. I forgot to bring this up but, to me, the whole argument that it is possible for a musician to make lucrative amounts of money with the name your own price scheme seems far-fetched, especially under the Radiohead argument. I doubt Radiohead would have ever been as successful as they were with "In Rainbows" if they weren't RADIOHEAD, on their 7th album, with well-established credibility structured by major record label marketing. They don't even need the money! And this also felt like a promotion! It was a limited time thing, got huge hype, and then everyone who missed out either downloaded it illegally (those people would've paid $0 anyway) or went out to buy the CD or the special edition, super-box set with flashy vinyl & a poster for $200. Just a thought.
Thanks
Your comment rings true, certainly Radiohead was able to do what they did because they are Radiohead and the beneficiaries of previous record contract money, etc.
My interest in bringing up the topic was less about what whether artists can find new business models and more about the general impact of the copyright rules on culture. Copyright intends to incent creative work, but where are the thresholds, when does the protection of earning incentives impact the fluidity of artistic exchage? If, as someone in the class mentioned, art/music is somehow a byproduct of borrowing and mutual inspiration, then copyright, taken too far, becomes a blockage on the creation of art.
Where is the balance?
This was the book I mentioned
This was the book I mentioned but forgot the name. I was mistaken, it actually wasn't Lessig, it's called Common as Air: Revolution, Art and Ownership.
http://www.amazon.com/Common-Air-Revolution-Art-Ownership/dp/0374532796/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1322001689&sr=8-8
Basically, it breaks down how copyrights came to be and explores how open and publicly accessible ideas, music and art can actually stimulate even greater creative output and democracy than they do now under market norms (in mainstream society). With the rise of social networks, I think we'll start seeing (well, we kind of are already) a more rapid shift from monetary capital incentives to social capital incentives.
As you mentioned, I think Creative Commons definitely has the power to create this balancing act. It provides a framework for artists to gain praise where it is due, which can lead to many doors being opened for their artwork to be explored by fresh fans and opportunities for collaboration. For example, in the case of remixes, when I discover the title of a record sampled in a hip-hop song I enjoy I immediately check the original sample out, which I think can become even more plausible as the web becomes even more interlinked.
Either way, I believe the true artist within someone will always find some way to come out and create art if it's truly in there. Even if that means they may not have the beautiful opportunity to get paid for it. Incentives too can sometimes filter true art by conforming to external expectations as a means to get by.
Tarleton Gillespie, my former professor for New Media & Society (which is an awesome class if you're curious how the digital age shapes our sense of identity and cultural expression) wrote the book Wired Shut (http://www.wiredshut.org/). I haven't had the chance to read it yet but I believe (from the class and the synopsis) it's about how copyright laws today threaten artistic freedom and the new channels of artistic light that grew out of this chokehold.
Sorry if I'm ranting. I just find this issue in my field (communication) fascinating and it's inspiring seeing it from the artist persepctive.