'Piracy' That Creates Amazing New Music

from the here-we-go-again dept

More than five years ago we first wrote about Kutiman, an Israeli musician who created an album of incredible new music simply by editing together a bunch of unrelated YouTube clips. The end result is... astounding. I still listen to it frequently. In some ways this is a "mashup" or a "remix" but it's unlike most that you've heard. Many remixes take a known recorded song and change it around or take a few different recorded songs and mix them all together. Those can be amazing too. I've found that by artists like Girl Talk or D.VELOPED often create music that I, personally, find to be more enjoyable than the originals. But Kutiman is different, and takes it to a new level by taking totally random bits of music -- often amateurs messing around -- on YouTube, and converting them into astoundingly complex and beautiful songs.

We've highlighted some of the examples in the past, but here are two examples from that first album, of taking a random video that most wouldn't consider to be anything all that special and turning into a part of an amazing project. We'll start with taking a simple kid playing a scale on a trumpet which becomes integral to an entire (great) funk song. Here's the trumpet bit: And here's the full song: Or how about this basic trombone solo becoming such a haunting and compelling part of this dub reggae song (trombone comes in at 42 seconds). Here's the trombone: And here's the full song: Kutiman is back again with a new track from a follow up album of songs clipped together from YouTube (the full album is expected to be released soon), and once again, it's quite amazing: And yet, some might argue that this is all nothing more than "piracy" or "infringement." Others may argue that this is not "real" music because it's just "remixing." I have a hard time taking any of those arguments seriously. Here is someone using those pieces as instruments to create a beautiful new work. It takes nothing away from the old work.

Unfortunately, however, there's already been some (now resolved) controversy with this new work. One of the cello players, Deryn Cullen, featured in this work apparently complained to Kutiman. It's this video in which she plays Bach's Prelude from Cello Suite no 2 in d minor. She apparently was initially upset and felt that Kutiman should have first asked permission to use her performance. After they talked it over, and she understood the nature of the project (and, perhaps, because she saw how much positive attention it was getting), she agreed that she was happy to be a part of it. It's good that they were able to have a discussion on this and come to a mutual appreciation -- but it's yet another unfortunate situation that one comes to when we live in a world of "permission culture," where some people feel that you should always get permission first. And to sort of prove how silly this is, one need only ask whether or not Cullen received permission from the estate of Johann Sebastian Bach before performing his piece.

I'm happy it worked out in the end, but imagine if every time someone wanted to create new music they had to get permission from everyone up and down the chain whose work played a part? What's happening here, with Kutiman, is so blatantly obviously brilliantly creative, new and original -- and yet, under our broken copyright laws it might be deemed "infringing" by some, "derivative" by others, and illegal by many. Isn't that a problem? Isn't the idea behind copyright law to encourage new and beautiful works like these? Adding the friction and tollbooth of "permission culture" to the process would make this kind of artwork impossible, and that would be a loss to everyone.

Filed Under: creation, creativity, culture, kutiman, mashup, music, piracy, remix, youtube

DailyDirt: Living On Earth (Or Elsewhere)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The origins of life are incredibly mysterious. The life that we normally interact with is made up of chiral molecules, and no one actually knows why only certain chiral molecules are involved in our biology. No one knows how life began, or where it began, or when. Lots of basic questions about life have no solid answers. Attempts to duplicate the creation of life have generally only produced inanimate molecules (except for synthetic life based on existing lifeforms). Here are just a few fascinating links on the topic of life.

• Moore's law probably doesn't apply to biology, but if it did, it suggests that life as we know it began before the Earth existed. Genetic complexity as a function of time has been extrapolated backwards, but it's obviously more of an interesting thought experiment than a meaningful biological theory. [url]
• NASA's Curiosity rover has analyzed some martian rock samples to answer the question: "could life have ever been supported on Mars?" The answer seems to be yes, but that still doesn't mean Mars had (or has) any life. [url]
• Do we need to look for alien life that's already amongst us? A shadow biosphere on earth could be an explanation for some mysteries like "desert varnish"... or Occam's razor might start cutting in here. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aliens, biology, biosphere, chirality, creation, desert varnish, life, mars, moore's law, occam's razor, science
Companies: nasa

Content Creators: Control Is An Illusion And That's A Good Thing

from the great-quote dept

Folks who hang out on HackerNews may have seen an interesting little debate flare up recently in a couple of threads. It started when a guy named Dustin Curtis announced a new simple blogging tool which he called Svbtle. He originally designed it for himself, then decided to make it into a wider offering, but is only letting "vetted" bloggers use it, rather than opening it up. This rubbed some folks the wrong way, and another guy, Nate Weinert, decided to build his own open source version that looks similar and has the same basic functionality, and released it to the world under the name Obtvse.

Then the debate raged in the two HN threads over the basic ethics of the decisions by both individuals -- Dustin for locking up his system and Nathan for copying Dustin's idea. It won't surprise many where I come down on this. History has shown that copying often leads to useful innovation and can help expand a market. I find arguments to the contrary somewhat frustrating, because they seem to argue that there's some sort of moral right in an idea -- something that just doesn't make that much sense to me. If others can do more with your idea, why should we stop them? Now, some argue that Nate didn't do more with the idea, but I disagree. He made it open and usable -- by definition doing more with it. Furthermore, in doing that, he made it much easier for others to build on it as well.

But, really, the reason I'm writing this post is a fascinating must-read comment by a guy named Frank Chimero, responding to a blog post by Daniel Howells about this whole back and forth. The comment is a really excellent and succinct explanation of how creativity works and the fact that once you've created something and released it to the world, you've lost control over it -- and pining over that lost control is a fool's errand:

I think once you publish something, you lose control of it. At worst, you inspire mockery and parody. At best, you become material for future work, because what you’ve made is successful, interesting, or relevant. Usually, it is both.

All work produces spill-over repercussions that usually go against the will of the work’s creator. The creator wishes to retain authorship and control the work, while those in the culture wish to use, transform, and remix it. If the work is truly successful, it will defy authorship and turn into a shared experience for everyone. Those works are the hardest to control, because they diffuse, and spread wide by permeating into the air. The become a shorthand for those who make or enjoy similar work, becoming a shared vocabulary.

The situation requires things from both those who create the work, and those who wish to use it.

For the initial creator, they must resign most control upon publication, especially on the internet. Their work will be used to say and do things they don’t intend. Ideas, in truth, go further when others carry them, and this usually means they will go in directions the original author did not intend or imagine. For instance, I’ve had a quote of mine (“People ignore design that ignores people.”) taken out of context and used to justify two completely contradictory design methods. So it goes.

For those that use the things made by others, they should credit where possible, and have their work be transformative in some way. They can carry the ideas of others, but they must to take it further or a new direction. Then, they are obliged share alike. To not do both is to go against the goodwill initiated by the work’s creator.

And for both, we should recognize that all creative processes use materials from those who came before us, and respect the meaningful influence of others. We’re part of a long line of people who make things. It is a privilege to get to use the work of others in our own.

So many excellent points in such a short comment. In fact, economic studies have actually shown, in fairly great detail, that it's exactly these kinds of "spillovers" that lead to economic growth (in fact, they were regularly called spillovers, until the economic language finally clarified a bit further). The fact that you can build on ideas is a natural resource that only expands. It's not limited by scarcity, like many natural resources. It's the nature of an idea to be infinitely copyable at no cost that acts as a resource multiplier that leads to economic growth. That's what's so powerful about it.

It's natural that the originator may get upset about how some of this works out, but contrary to the claims of some, if someone does something with your work, it doesn't do anything to the original. It just expands the overall market. You lose control, but that's not bad. The things that you did are based on the fact that others lost control of things as well.

Oh, and for a bit of irony, I only found this quote because Dustin Curtis highlighted it on his own (Svbtle) blog. Yes, the guy who had his work copied chose to highlight this particular comment... and add "great artists steal" to the end. Seems that he recognizes how all this works and perhaps isn't too upset about how things went down.

Filed Under: content, control, copying, creation, dustin curtis, frank chimero, nate weinert, obtvse, open source, svbtle

Facebook Hosts 4% Of All Photos Ever Taken In History

from the the-tools-of-creation dept

For all the talk of how content creation is going down the drain due to lax copyright enforcement, it seems that everywhere we look, we just keep seeing more and more and more content creation. The latest is a report that Facebook currently hosts 4% of all photos ever taken. Specifically, it hosts 140 billion photos out of 3.5 trillion photos taken in history. Now, obviously, technology change is at work here. Photography really only showed up for real about a century and a half ago, and didn't really hit the mainstream until less than a century ago. And, of course, for most of that time it involved (sometimes expensive) film and the expensive step of processing it. Photography has exploded over the last decade or so with the rise of digital cameras, and, of course, high quality digital cameras built into mobile phones.

But, really, that raises a bigger point: the tools of creation for all sorts of things have been changing rapidly and making it easier and cheaper to create content, whether it's a photograph, a song, a movie, a book or.. well... just about anything. We're being inundated with new creative works... at the same time we're being told that content creation is dying. Now, to be fair, much of the content production we're talking about is amateur production, but some of that is of fantastic quality, and is leading people into professional content creation roles. But, I guess this raises a separate question. What is the real purpose of copyright? Is it only to incentivize professional content creation, or to incentivize content creation overall? Given the stated purpose is to "promote the progress," and to provide the public with more content, I would argue the goal is to promote more overall content, and it seems that technology is doing a much better job of that than copyright.

Filed Under: creation, photos
Companies: facebook

Getting Past The Myth That Copyright Is Needed To Produce Content

from the simply-not-true dept

Glyn Moody points us to an excellent article at Eurozine, by Felix Stalder, about the myths of copyright today and how weaker copyright actually can increase cultural output. It starts out by showing that the standard claims behind copyright are simply not true. It's based on an assumption, implicit (and sometimes explicit) in almost all pro-copyright arguments, that copyright is the sole source of income for content creators. But this is false.

This simple assumption, however, is incorrect. First, copyright as the basis of artists' income is just one of many cultural economic models, namely that in which the "first copy" receives substantial investment that has then to be recouped (and more) through the sale of specific usage rights (licenses) to the users of further copies. This model is by no means applied across all domains of culture and, even where it is, it generates extremely unequal incomes. By and large, copyright-centered business models generate blockbuster economies, in which very few people earn very substantial incomes while the great majority of producers receive little to nothing for their work. Thus, the argument that copyright generated income works well only for a few, highly visible artists and their supporting industries.

This is a point we've discussed before, but which often gets ignored. When you look at the historical evidence of monopolies, you see the same thing. While it can create a few giant businesses, it actually harms the wider market, decreases competition, and cuts out any chance of a "middle class" in the market. It's entirely "go big or go home." Culturally, we may be losing out in such a market, because your choices become limited mainly to the major blockbuster artists. If you remove, or weaken, copyright laws, you open up the opportunity for many more artists to make a good living by employing other business models.

The article notes that, in fact, copyright "is simply not very relevant for many forms of cultural production." And for many areas of content, weak copyright protection likely increases output, because it lowers the "cost" of the raw materials (other parts of culture). But, on top of that, weaker copyright opens up all sorts of new opportunities. The article discusses things like YouTube's setup for monetizing videos, which simply creates tremendous new opportunities to make money where none would have been made before.

Given that most independent videos on YouTube would have received no revenue at all under the old copyright regime, the important thing to recognise is that it is possible to gain some revenue by providing free access to one's material. A such, it represents a functioning, if limited, commercial opportunity enabled by a weak copyright environment.

It also discusses totally new opportunities, like Flattr (of which we are a happy user -- which we'll be discussing more about soon) and Kickstarter. Basically, into the void new and interesting business models emerge (as some of us at Techdirt have been predicting for over a decade). And the nice thing about those new business models is that they rely less on gatekeepers and more on people to support what they like, with more of the money going directly to the content creators. It may not create the same blockbusters (and even that I'm not sure I believe), but it creates a much wider spectrum of people who can make a good living. All in all, a great article.

Filed Under: copyright, creation, myth

Dan Bull Auctioning Off A Custom Song On eBay

from the nicely-done dept

We've written about singer Dan Bull a bunch of times, including doing a case study on him and highlighting a few of his songs, including Death of ACTA and Dear Lily, both embedded here:

Beyond singing about copyright issues, and releasing his stuff for free (though I bought his album), it appears he's experimenting in other areas of business models as well. For years, we've pointed out that one of the key "scarcities" that can be sold is the creation of new works. This is a point that confuses many, since a song is not scarce once created (and made available in digital format). But the creation of a new work is very much a scarcity. Dan seems to recognize that and is running an experiment in which he tries auctioning off the creation of a new song on eBay. Since eBay auctions disappear, here's a screenshot: The text reads:

Hello, my name is Daniel and I make songs. You can see my stuff by typing "Dan Bull" into YouTube. I've decided to find out what my music is really worth so I'm sticking myself on eBay. The winning bidder will receive:

One song on any topic of your choice, written, performed and produced by Dan Bull. Duration: 2.30 - 3.30 approx. I will liaise with you via e-mail if there any specific details you wish to include in the song. You will be free to use and redistribute this song in any way you wish, however I reserve the right to do the same. The song will be delivered to you in MP3 format within 14 days of the winning bid.

Get bidding now, because this may never happen again. Love from Dan :) x

Pretty cool experiment. We'll be interested to see how it turns out...

Filed Under: auction, creation, dan bull, music, scarcity

Groupon... And The Difference Between Idea & Execution

from the all-about-the-execution dept

About a month ago, the folks at Planet Money did a nice podcast on the economics of Groupon. There's no doubt that there's a bit of a "coupon" bubble going on these days, with tons of companies crowding into the space, and (as the Podcast notes) a bunch of ex-Wall St. types jumping into the space with talk of creating derivatives on coupons/deals. At the same time, plenty of people have mocked Groupon and insisted that its model isn't sustainable and others can easily come in and kill Groupon. In fact, some of the Wall St. guys who stayed on Wall St. are saying that Groupon's value shouldn't be that high because anyone with a phone can copy them.

Lots of people are discussing Felix Salmon's excellent analysis of the economics of Groupon, which is really more about the fact that Groupon has dominated the space because it executes well. That is, it's not about the idea, it's about the execution. The fact that it has remained dominant despite so many copycats shows that just copying isn't enough. This doesn't mean that Groupon will always be the best at executing (in fact, I doubt it will be). But it's not so simple as just coming in and copying.

This is an issue that comes up all the time when we talk about business and intellectual property. People who haven't built up businesses like this assume that all you need is the idea -- and if an idea can be copied, then the company can't succeed. But that ignores just how important the execution element is. Salmon talks about how hard Groupon works to make sure its advertisers are happy with the results, to a level beyond most of its competitors. However, I think there's another element of Groupon's execution that hasn't received nearly enough attention: how enjoyable it makes the whole thing for consumers.

Groupon employs a bunch of writers who work hard to make sure all of the deals are compelling, enjoyable and fun. It always amazes me how much people underestimate the value of the quality of the writing in Groupon's offers. However, where it really struck me was a few months back, when I was researching some newer competitors to Groupon -- in particular, newspapers that were offering deals directly to compete with Groupon. In theory, newspapers should be able to absolutely destroy Groupon. If you're just standing on the mountain looking down, and seeing who has the advantages here, it's clearly the newspapers. Newspapers already rely on local advertising and deals, and have established long-term relationships in the market. On top of that, newspapers employ a ton of (mostly) high quality writers as well, so they should be able to create similarly compelling content.

And yet, when I was looking at various newspaper Groupon clones, what struck me was how boring and dull their offers were. Even if the deals themselves were comparable (and they often weren't), they just weren't that interesting or compelling to read. And that's because the newspapers -- like the Wall St. analyst above -- are engaging in cargo cult copying, where they think that all that matters is copying the superficial idea -- while missing the secret sauce that goes into the less obvious execution.

As a final aside, the quality of Groupon's content highlights another key point that we've raised many times before: how "infinite goods" like content make scarce goods more valuable. In this case, the "content" created by Groupon's writers (and, yes, this is also an example of how advertising is content) is valuable. But no one's selling the "content." What Groupon is doing is using that good content to make the scarcity of the deals more valuable, making more people willing to buy them.

In the end, I will admit that I have my doubts about the overall sustainability of Groupon itself, but it's not because "the idea" is easily copyable. I'm just not convinced that Groupon can continue to execute as well, and some aspects of what it's offering have some elements of a fad written all over them. But claiming that the company is overvalued because the "idea" is too easy makes little sense.

Filed Under: content, coupons, creation, deals, economics, execution, idea, innovation
Companies: groupon

You Shouldn't Need An Excuse For Having Fun & Creating Something

from the creating-stuff dept

There's a music conference going on in Boston tomorrow called Rethink Music, which has received some attention because a group of the content creators attending -- Ben Folds, Amanda Palmer, Damian Kulash and Neil Gaiman -- have decided to spend the latter part of today writing, recording and releasing an eight-song album. When I heard about it, I thought it sounded like a fun project, from a group of very creative folks, all of whom are known for their many, many examples of experimenting widely with different ideas when it comes to creating, promoting and releasing content. A collaboration of all of them together as a fun experiment? Why not?

However, some apparently found it offensive. Jeremy Schlosberg wrote a post for Hypebot complaining that we're facing the "tyranny of novelty," in that in today's digital music environment, there's more of a focus on doing something new, rather than doing something good:

We have succumbed to the tyranny of novelty, and music will take a beating until we wake up from this collective trance in which we’re all only chasing the newest, "nowest" thing, in which the only values we can agree upon are buzz generation and viral success. In this environment, a unique real-time experience is worth paying for simply because it is a unique real-time experience.

Amanda Palmer has posted a good response to this, in which she notes that this just seemed like a much more fruitful way to spend today rather than the typical night-before-a-conference get together in which there's a dinner and speakers all sit around and chat (which, can actually be fun in its own way -- but perhaps not as productive):

we're doing this for one main reason: because we're all going to be in the same place at the same time and we couldn't bear the thought of just sitting at a panel table, discussing the internet and not actually taking advantage of the time and the resources to MAKE SOMETHING. we, all four of us, are artists who LIKE MAKING SHIT.

we could have met up the night before our panel, caught a few of the other talks, got drinks together, attended the speakers dinner at the conference, chatted about our careers, had a nice leisurely dinner with each other, and said goodnight-i'll see-you-at-the-panel-in-the-morning.

that would have easily taken 8 hours.

instead, we're doing none of that and we're going to lock ourselves in a studio and make something together. WE decided to do this, nobody asked us to.

It's also worth noting that the four of them are connected in various ways (mainly via Amanda). Neil, obviously, is married to Amanda. Ben produced one of her albums. And Damian and Amanda have performed together.

I had three separate, but distinct, reactions to the whole kerfuffle:

1. I think Schlosberg has set up a false dilemma here in thinking that the "tyranny of novelty" is somehow new or being driven more by the way things are in this digital age. He does admit that it's always been a part of the music industry, but I think he's overreacting somewhat in thinking that this means that great music isn't also being produced. Admittedly, there was some extra hype in the press release about how this little experiment shows how the music industry is changing, but we should all know better than to key in on a throwaway hype line in a press release.
2. Some of the discussion goes back to the same old question of the magic bullet. People want to find out what is the answer to the struggles the recording industry has had, and they want to assign way too much credibility to a key example or event, rather than recognizing that while you can pull lessons from all sorts of experiments, there is no magic bullet. That doesn't mean you can't learn from each experiment and pull out interesting lessons and see where they can be applied. It just means there's no universal "this is how it's done."
3. Finally, it seems sort of silly that anyone should have to defend getting together with some other creative friends to create some content, in the name of "but that content creation strategy is a gimmick." Let them create and stop worrying about it. In a time when people keep telling us that there are fewer and fewer incentives to create (not that I believe that), shouldn't we be cheering on a bunch of folks who get together and say "let's make something, just for the fun of it!"?

I have no idea if what comes out of this experiment will be good. I don't think it defines "the future of the music business." I just think it's yet another cool experiment. Part of the nature of experiments is that sometimes they work and sometimes they don't -- but you can learn from both situations just the same.

Filed Under: amanda palmer, ben folds, creation, culture, damian kulash, neil gaiman

The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering

from the so-what's-the-purpose-of-copyright dept

We hear all the time how the world needs stronger copyright laws or people will have no motivation to create. This is obviously false, but to what level? Well, the amount of content creation going on these days is staggering. By some reports, every two days, we now create more content than was created from the beginning of time until 1993. I'm not sure I totally believe that stat, but even if it's an exaggeration by an order of magnitude, we're still talking about a ridiculous amount of content creation every single day. And the thing is, the vast, vast, vast majority of that content creation is done for incentives that have nothing to do with copyright. I think it can easily be argued that over 99% of the content created today is done for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright.

Of course, when we talk about things like torrent trackers, copyright maximalists like to point out that since (according to some reports) 99% of the content found via those trackers is infringing, then the trackers and search engines themselves should be deemed illegal. Of course, if we are to accept that logic, then shouldn't it apply equally to works automatically covered by copyright, despite no need for them to be covered by copyright? If 99% of works created are not due to copyright incentives, by the very argument of the copyright maximalists, copyright should be deemed worthless. Note, I am not saying that copyright is definitely worthless. I'm just pointing out that if we use the same basic logic as those who wish to condemn tools like The Pirate Bay using the 99% claim, then those same folks should obviously support the idea that those works created without copyright as an incentive do not deserve copyright. Why do I get the feeling they will claim otherwise?

Filed Under: copyright, creation, culture