I think you’re heading in the direction I was first in when I realized what bunk copyright was. Preface: I’m an anti-stater, a free marketeer. Postface: I believe that EVERY medium has an opportunity for marketing as a free downloadable product, including bands and movies.

I am starting a production studio in Chicago called No Copyright Studios. Our focus is to take musicians and actors (and writers and podcasters and whatever) and help them produce their works that would be considered “public domain” unprotected works, and help them change the distribution from a profit motive to a marketing one. For example, a band can give away their recorded album in exchange for the marketing. The profit can come from selling the “artist’s version” of the physical album which might also include a free ticket to a show, access to a web-based performance of them in the studio (during practice?) or a myriad of other value added items. For the movie production, I will be working with a variety of theatres throughout the Chicago area, focusing on taking a stage production from a set script to more “TV-show-like.” A theater group (comedy, drama, etc) would work on disseminating their show via torrent or otherwise in exchange for building a fan base that wants to see them live, or possibly in advance of a tour.

The current motivations of creation are grounded in profit-for-data, but these are too old fashioned to really be the future. When content is protected by force of government, the worst happens: the distribution falls into the hands of cartels. These cartels then work harder to extend their domain (by years, and by subsequent laws) which make the cartels more powerful. Instead of 50,000 bands making a nice living, you have 50 bands that are mega-profit-makers, and 49,950 bands that can’t even get heard. This has repeated itself for decades as the distribution cartels got stronger and stronger, through force of law.

I’ve written MANY articles on this topic, and if you’re interested in chatting more, drop me an e-mail.

For example: (a) If you are an unknown band it makes more sense to give your work away for free than if you are R.E.M. You’ve got little in revenue to lose and much in exposure to gain. And vice versa.

(b) If you are a book author it makes more sense to give your work away as a download than if you are a film director or band. I’ve just downloaded the free version of Yochai Benkler’s new book, The Wealth of Networks, to try it out – but there’s no way I want to read a 500 page book as a pdf. If the first chapter’s good, I’ll probably buy the book, which is much easier on the eye and more portable. But if my favourite band gave away their latest album for free, I could enjoy it perfectly well in digital form – so what incentive would I have to buy a hard copy?

In cyberspace, maybe some media are luckier than others…

For me, getting the words out there creates a bigger market — a market that I can gain if the people are truly interested. Giving someone a free e-book helps to get them to buy the entire book. I am in the process of self-publishing one book and getting a reputable publisher to publish a second one — both will be available freely online to download. I have real hopes of both selling 5 figure quantities, which is more than enough for me to get paid for the time I put into the book. In the long run, I see no reason for someone to make huge money on what is basically a few hundred hours of work.

In the long run, all of the concerns about “information theft” and “copyright protection” will not be concerns. Those who worry too much about their words being used by others will just be a thorn in the side of people enhancing that information (and growing that market). Those who see the real income is from actually getting someone interested in your NEXT work will be the ones who will profit the most.

For me, I’m glad people still hold on to the idea that information is valuable. I don’t. Information is worthless — it is the package that you sell, the value added features, that is what is golden. I’ll always give away my words if it means I can charge what I charge for my face-time. It has always compensated me more than trying to charge people for the information I’m happily giving away freely.

So, for me, thank you. And for a few kilobytes/megabytes less transfer each day, you’re welcome. :)

Just a couple days ago, I decided to publish full posts on my RSS feeds (my blog is under editorial consideration at BlogBurst.com and they required full RSS feeds) but then started using the “more…” feature on my homepage, so as to better track who was reading what (vs. just having most of the hits read “Homepage”).

I’m not sure if this is of any more value to me or to my readers. If anyone cares to feedback to me on this point, I welcome your thoughts.

Thanks in advance!

I switched to full feeds a few months ago and really haven’t looked back. Yes, occasionally someone swipes my content or a portion thereof, but they usually wind up losing their AdSense account shortly thereafter. :)

I’d go with the full feed. Why? Can I make an assumption that most folks who would be using a rss reader as their primary gateway to your blog would be ad blind anyway.

So, in effect, by letting them get the full feed you are building on Point #1 with your core audience.

And I also guess it’s where you want to take ProB. If you want to get your name out there then make it as easy for the customer to get to you.

BTW, have you got a book deal yet?