We are used to the never ending rants of 'free music and movies', how about free journalism and 'free' stuff in general?
Personally I am no big fan of 'free'. It usually means that you have to accept something at a lower quality simply because it is free OR that it is not actually free - the costs you pay for it are just hidden in clever ways.
The linked article focuses on a specific newspaper in the UK, but that is not what is relevant. What IS relevant are the questions that are asked and what it is that makes quality work 'free'.
If you have the time, then I really recommend this read:
If the future's worth having, it won't be free
Relating to my music, some of my songs are made available free. Why, you say?
It is not because I think that anybody in the world that may like my music can't afford to spend ~1€ on one of my tracks.
I do it for two reasons:
- I am a small independent unknown artist, having some of my music for free helps me get some attention in the ever increasing buzz on the Internet.
- As I don't live on the income from my music (yeah, that would be the day!) I am not depending on it to pay my bills.
I spend tremendous amounts of time and money producing my music. To date I have spent about 5000€ more than the income has been. Am I insane?
I don't think so.
I aim to deliver quality products, in my case music, or an experience as I like to view it.
Some may not like what I produce. I am fine with that. I am not forcing anybody to buy or listen to my music. Neither do I allow myself to lower the quality just so that I can make it 'free'.
I am happy to pay for quality, I do and I will continue to do so.