Kickstart the NEA Shutdown

Talking Points Memo has an interesting post about Kickstarter. If you haven't heard of Kickstarter before, here's a summary from Wikipedia:

One of a new set of fundraising platforms dubbed "crowdfunding", Kickstarter facilitates gathering monetary resources from the general public, a model which circumvents many traditional avenues of investment. People must apply to Kickstarter in order to have a project posted on the site, and Kickstarter provides guidelines on what types of projects will be accepted. Project owners choose a deadline and a target minimum of funds to raise. If the chosen target is not gathered by the deadline, no funds are collected...

Unlike many forums for fundraising or investment, Kickstarter claims no ownership over the projects and the work they produce. However, projects launched on the site are permanently archived and accessible to the public. After funding is completed, projects and uploaded media cannot be edited or removed from the site.

“Kickstarter can be used to fund projects from the creative fields of Art, Comics, Dance, Design, Fashion, Film, Food, Games, Music, Photography, Publishing, Technology, and Theater. We currently only support projects from these categories.” It seems that there could be opportunities to bring crowdfunding into other business fields as well.

I think the crowdfunding innovation is a benefit to society as a whole, and Kickstarter seems to be quite a success at it. Recently Kickstarter has had 3 projects raise over a million dollars, but the main point of the TPM post was that Kickstarter is on track to raise about $150 million this year which makes its funding total greater than the NEA.

That is fantastic on many levels!

First, that these projects get to be made enriches society. Second people chose which projects they wanted to donate to. Therefore, all these projects are just that... wanted. This is much more effecient than a panel of "experts" deciding who and what gets funded because it taps in to the Hayekian distributed knowledge. Third, it proves that the argument that important projects won't get fund without government assistance argument is wrong. Of course, some projects won't get funded. "54 percent of all projects launched on the website fail to reach their funding goals, according to Strickler, but the projects that are wanted and needed still would. Fourth, should a project that needs funding be morally objectionable to someone, they don't have to fund it. Every year people argue about some of the things the NEA funds because something or another upset their delicate sensibilities. In a voluntary system people can't complain about being forced to fund something they don't like.

For all of these reasons I was surprised to this article on TPM which usually leans to the left politcally. Then I saw this disappointing quote from the founder of Kickstarter about raising more money than the NEA: “But maybe it shouldn’t be that way,” Strickler said, “Maybe there’s a reason for the state to strongly support the arts.”

He might as well have said: "Maybe Kickstarter shouldn't be so successful. Maybe people should get the projects they want. Maybe people should be forced to fund things they don't like." Actually, I can think of two reasons "for the state to strongly support the arts". One is to create propaganda, and the other is to promote a particular agenda favorable to the state. Personally, I don't like either one.

Apolitical Episode 2

Actually, the charges against Megaupload claim that the removal of the search function was evidence of a conspiracy. So the DOJ is actually making this argument, but it seems that Chris Dodd CEO and chief lobbyist for the MPAA has become the DOJ's unofficial spokesperson on piracy related matters.

My First Apolitical Comic

I got a pen tablet the other day for my laptop. It was fairly cheap so I figured if it saves me some time great. If not, I'm not out much, and I'll have a toy for my daughter to play with. I tried it out, and as it turns out. It works pretty well. I made my first apolitical comic. (Apolitical in the sense that I can't stand politics.)

(Just in case you hadn't heard, Chris Dodd CEO and cheif lobbyist of the MPAA blamed SOPA's failure on Google instead of the mass uprising that was against. So in other words, anyone who is against it, in his opinion, just duped by Google and Wikipedia.)

I'm not the best artist around, but this drawing only took me about 10 minutes. In fact it took me longer to get the text layed out properly. I was using Paint, you know, the free program that comes with windows. I really need to get a better drawing program. I'm thinking about getting Autodesk Sketchbook Pro. It's reasonably priced also.

The pen tablet is made by Monoprice, which I've never heard of before, but then again, it's not really my field of specialty. It seems to be a decent quality tool. As long as it doesn't fall apart any time soon, I think I've made a good purchase.

I have some loosely layed out guidance that I'm trying. I've decided I'm going to started buying better tools and software instead of using free stuff e.g. a pen tablet and Sketchbook instead of a mouse and Paint. Hopefully my purchases will save me time. I'll just have to make sure that I don't waste all this extra time playing with my new toys.

Music Demographic

I came across a post on the DIY Musician blog. They've posted an open letter to venue owners by jazz musician Dave Goldberg. The letter is about the current state of business models in the music venue business.

Let me clarify before I begin. I'm talking about businesses that offer live music as a compliment to their core business, e.g. a rock band at a bar, a one piece acoustic show at a coffee house, or a jazz band at a winery. More than just a stage in a building that sells tickets. The current practice is for venues to pay little and require musicians to provide customers. Here's what Goldberg had to say about it:

If you asked a club owner, "who is your target demographic?" I doubt they would answer "the band’s friends and family." But yet clubs operate like it is. Another example, I answered a craigslist ad for a nice looking place in Beverly Hills. The ad read…"looking for a high energy jazz band, if you can bring the band and have a following, I will put you on stage." That logic seams to say that they think musicians in a jazz band know lots of people living in Beverly Hills. And the people those musicians know, have lots of money to spend. Those are two pretty big assumptions. Good luck finding that combination. Even if you find that combination, are you going to find it every night? Because friends and family of a professional musician won’t come out that often. They can’t. This is what we do every night. Would you expect the chef’s friends and family to eat at your restaurant every night? How about the dishwasher, the waitresses, the hostess? Or how about the club owners friends and family? You see, when you start turning this argument around, it becomes silly.

So every night venue has live music, the owners want a different crowd of people who won't come back until the band comes back. It doesn't look like a very good business model. For a business to thrive they would want to have a customer base that is loyal to the venue. The entertainment should help build that loyalty with the businesses customer base in a complimentary way. Instead it's looked at as a temporary boost, only lasting the one night when the musician is there.

Goldberg also retells an argument he had with a venue owner:

At the end of the night, I go to get paid, and hope to book another gig. The club owner was angry."Where are your people?" he asked. "All these people, I brought in. We had a speed dating event and they are all left over from that." I pointed out they all stayed and listened to the music for 2 hours after their event ended. That was 2 more hours of bar sales, because without us, you have an empty room with nothing going on. He just couldn’t get over the fact that we didn’t walk in with our own entourage of fans. Wasn’t happy that we kept a full room spending money. Right when we were talking, a group of people interrupted us and said "you guys sound  great, when is the next time you’re playing here again?" The club owner, said "they aren’t, they didn’t  bring anyone."

As a thought experiment, imagine a situation like this. A club has a few regulars, and the owner only brings in bands that have a bunch of friends that come to see them. Keeping in mind that having a bunch of friends who come to a club to hang out with you does not equate to being good musicians, let's say this hypothetical band isn't very good. The band and their friends come, but all the clubs regulars leave. The club makes money for the night so the owner's happy, and asks them to come back. How many times does the band have to show up and make the regulars go home before the regulars stop coming back. This is a flimsy and temporary business model.

A much better model would be for the venue to act as a filter so that loyal customers would always know that there is going to be great music there. This is similar to an article I read on Techdirt about how a "music affinity group" would be an improvement over the record label business model.

Rip Me Off (Part 2)

To summarize part 1. Google ContentID flagged me, which I guess I should take as a compliment because Google claims that one of the criteria for getting matched is audio quality so apparently I meet their quality standards. My complaint was that I don't think the claimant actually owns the copyright, as explained in the previous post, because there are two types of copyrights: one for the composition and one for the sound recording.

This post I'd like to review what I've learned about Intellectual Property. IP was created in the 18th century for less than noble reasons:

The first signs of IP appeared after the invention of the printing press. Governments used it to suppress political dissent (I suspect that the religion wars had something to do with this). It was a royal mercantilist privilege confer on printers, same as it was conferred on tea, tin, cotton, banking, or any other good. In the day, it seemed reasonable. The ruler wanted to control goods and producers want guarantees. Everyone wins, right? Except that there is no competition, no market process, and hence there is stasis. Mercantilism was refuted by economists and free market emerged and history was changed.

What happened to IP in the age when mercantilism was being repealed? It was not abolished but transferred from kings to producers: the exclusive right to produce was granted to private owners who became responsible for enforcement under the cover of law. This was a huge mistake in the liberal revolution of the 18^th century, an inconsistency that continues to haunt us.

Not only is the history of IP somewhat nefarious, the system actually works against the realities of modernity. Its only purpose is to make non scarce goods scarce. The barriers to entry have been lowered. Recording equipment is cheaper than ever and competition is rising. When producers compete, some producers win and some lose. That's just the way it works, but the consumer always wins in this situation. Those that provide better products and services, or in other words those that consumers prefer, survive. Amazon won. Tower Records lost. TVT lost, but Dischord is still making it.

So again I'm saying: "Rip me off." Anything I post, copy it, remix it, parody it... this blog, my music, my book when it's finished. Use it any way you see fit. I would only ask two things if you use it, let people know where you got it, and two if you make money off of it, share a little. Please? You'll be doing me a favor because content is advertising so I'm releasing any of my content on a non commercial creative commons license.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
New business models are not about selling the content. Techdirt has a formula for new business models: CwF + RtB = $$$$ or in other words, Connect with Fans and Give them a Reason to Buy is the new business model. Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead are two good examples, and there are many more at Techdirt.

Rip Me Off (Part 1)

Some things are just ridiculous. I uploaded 5 videos for Brother Down today. Here's one:



Obviously we didn't right the song. The title says it's a cover. I've already received an email from YouTube stating that the video "may have content or video that is owned or licensed by Warner Chappell." (Actually I received the same information about another video also, but for explanation purposes I stick to one video, even though both situations are identical.)

Here's the explanation about why this irritates me. There are two copyrights when discussing music. The first is the song copyright, and the second is the sound recording copyright. From CDBaby's FAQ on recording cover songs:

Keep in mind that the owner of these rights is typically a publisher, and that the owner of the rights in the song is not the same as the owner of the rights to any particular recording of the song. In other words, Record Labels are almost never the owners of the copyright to the musical composition - they typically own only sound recordings. You should be looking for the name of a publisher (or in some cases an individual).

Further from BMI's FAQ:

What is the difference between a songwriter and a publisher?

A songwriter or composer is the creator of a work, which is a song, score or other musical composition. A publisher, on the other hand, is an individual or company that owns or administers the copyright of a work. The writer or creator of the work must assign the copyright to a publisher in order for that publisher to claim ownership.

So if we do a search of BMI's Repertoire database we find:

HASH PIPE
BMI Work #5595418
Songwriter/Composer          Current Affiliation          CAE/IPI #
CUOMO RIVERS              BMI                              180165192

Publishers
E O SMITH MUSIC           BMI                              180282972

So plainly, the song copyright is owned by Rivers Cuomo, he is using E. O. Smith Music to administer the copyright. Warner Chappell then, being the record label, would own the sound recording copyright. The thing is, I didn't use Warner's recording. I recorded it myself in the Anarchoroom, so Anarchronistic owns the sound recording rights. Warner has no claim on this video. Brother Down performed it. They own the performance rights, so collectively, Weezer has no claim on it either.

Rivers Cuomo, personally, does have a claim on it. He owns the song copyright. If I were going to sell the song, I could get a pay the mechanical royalties and get a compulsory license to use the work. As long as the rules are followed properly, the license is automatic. Rivers Cuomo would not legally be able to object to it's use. However the compulsory license only covers selling the work. It does not cover free streaming over the internet. The compulsory license law was created for the benefit of the record labels. They used it to have "respectable musicians" record "black music" so they could sell it to kids over the objections of their parents. Now the same companies that had these laws written to their advantage (and continue to have laws written to their advantage) use their laws to my disadvantage.

What is a person supposed to do? The only choice would be to post it and hope for the best. Though, if Rivers Cuomo, or his publisher E. O. Smith Music, asked to have the video taken down, I would have to comply because currently there is no legal way to cover a song and post it to YouTube. Admittedly I'm a little frustrated. YouTube is a great advertising vehicle. I don't want to lose access to it.

I don't think this situation is right. I create content so I understand the desire to be compensated for your work, but this system is broken. For this reason, I am saying: "Rip me off." Anything I post, copy it, remix it, parody it... this blog, my music, my book when it's finished. Use it any way you see fit. I would only ask two things if you use it, let people know where you got it, and two if you make money off of it, share a little. Please? I have more thoughts on this for another post soon.

Update: Here is part 2.

The Noble Savage, Specialization, and the Freedom of Simplicity

LRC posted an interesting article on the myth of the noble savage. The myth itself is ancient and persistent. In the Judeo-Christian culture it is called the Garden of Eden. In ancient Greece it was the Golden Age. In the Hindu-Vedic tradition it was the Satya Yuga. The modern version was crafted by Rousseau in his Discourse On Inequality, and regained popularity more recently through Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

The article itself provides evidence that the myth is just that: a work of fiction. He cites the fact that chimpanzees make war and commit rape, that rape is also common among orangutans, and that gorillas commit infanticide. He quotes Harvard archaeologist Steven Le Blanc and Katherine E. Register's book Constant Battles that "warfare in the past was pervasive and deadly" and also that cannibalism and infanticide were common among early humans. From the article:

Le Blanc concluded "the common notion of humankind's blissful past, populated with noble savages living in a pristine and peaceful world, is held by those who do not understand our past and who have failed to see the course of human history for what it is."

The article has a quote that I had never read before, but I very much enjoyed. Apparently, Rousseau sent a copy of his Discourse On Inequality to Voltaire. Having received the book Voltaire sent Rousseau a letter to acknowledge that he had.

"I have received, monsieur, your new book against the human race. I thank you for it...no one has ever employed so much intellect in the attempt to prove us beasts. A desire seizes us to walk on four paws when we read your work. Nevertheless, as it is more than sixty years since I lost the habit, I feel, unfortunately, that it is impossible for me to resume it."

The reason I find this quote so amusing is how it cuts through Rousseau's circular logic. In other words, if humanity followed Rousseau's recommendation to not come down out of the trees then Rousseau would never have had "so much intellect" to make the recommendation.

Besides Voltaire's purely entertaining quote, the article has me thinking. One of my goals in life is simplicity. I want everything in my life to be as uncomplicated as possible. I want to cut out all the crap. The article does a good job of exposing that the noble savage was not the simple blissful idiot that he is romanticized to be because he was never at peace, but what about the other side of the argument that modern life is all hustle and bustle, too complicated to enjoy.

Thinking about it logically, the "noble" savage had to work every minute to survive. He had to hunt and gather food, ward of predators, make shelter and clothing, he couldn't adequately clean and so he was prone to diseases, and suffering an injury like a broken leg almost certainly meant death. Is this what people mean by the simple life?

The "noble" savage had to not only know how these things were done, but had to be proficient at them just to survive. How many people can tell an edible plant from countless poisonous look alikes? In the modern world we can buy food from experts who know the difference between the edible and the poisonous plants. This is called specialization, the division of labor. The system itself is complex, but it allows each individual to focus on their own niche. It gives the individual the freedom of simplicity.

Maybe "the simple life" isn't possible without the complex system of specialization we have in the modern world. Since at least the time of Malthus, possibly even earlier, the fallacy has claimed that a calamity was imminent due to humans' selfish overuse of resources, yet living standards continue to rise. Still as the wealth and comfort of the average person continuously increases, the specter of a Malthusian disaster waiting just around the corner is never questioned.

What will it take to destroy Malthus's prediction? His Essay on the Principle of Population was first published in 1798. If it didn't come true in the 214 years that have passed since then why does the average person believe that it is still imminent? Is it the power of myths? They continue to hold our imaginations even after they are shown to be demonstrably false. What will it take to make a new myth, A truer myth, in which specialization improves our lives by increasing our standard of living. It makes life more comfortable and simpler.