I've grown skeptical of the motivations of big tech companies. Some of the arguments put forth in defense of tech and related industries sound a lot like the arguments put forth in defense of dominant industries in previous eras. I think it must go with the territory. Once you become "the establishment" you act like the establishment, even if you were the reason older industries were disrupted.
Therefore, when big tech companies fund "freedom of the Internet" campaigns, I now look at what's in it for them. I don't think they are acting in the interests of average citizens.
I also view with a great deal of skepticism arguments about privacy directed at the government when private companies want to do just as much information gathering. If you care about citizen privacy, you've got to question what companies are doing with that data just as much as what governments are doing with that data.
And, what appeals to me are all the people who have figured out they can live quite well without lots of chairs. They use what others are giving away for free. They are moving into tiny houses that don't have room for many chairs. They are downsizing.
If people are too broke to buy chairs, they will get by sitting on the ground. There will be chair makers and they will sell to the wealthy; the poor will make do.
The wealthy will have their private concerts and hire people to make music. Everyone else will have friends over and make their own music.
I've written quite a bit on the economics of art, gift economies, etc. I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to talk about how to make a living at art, or even how to survive as an artist, without looking at the overall economy. I think people will always make art, and people will always consume art, but having enough money to spend on art is another matter. If disposable income goes down (and I think that is the trend as people need to put more aside for the necessities and for stuff like college tuition), music and art may be areas where people don't have the money to spend. That doesn't mean they won't get art (it could come from free user-generated content, from legal and illegal free art, and so on), but actually buying art, art experiences, and paying artists will lose out to food, fuel, housing, health care, etc.
What I would like to see is an expansion of creativity so that people, no matter how broke they may be, will make their own art, and not necessarily need to buy it to have it. The separation between artists and fans will blur to such an extent that we will all be artists. There won't be a collection of fans there to support the artists because there won't be a distinction between the two. Whatever is done to generate food, housing, health care, and so on will likely be done as the primary whole, with art just being an integral part of life, like breathing.
If corporations are themselves doing extensive data collection and peering into all aspects of our lives (e.g., location, purchasing, browsing, health, relationships), they don't have much credibility in my eyes.
Like I said, if it comes down to government versus corporations, I pick neither.
Yes, I am highly skeptical about data-collecting companies lobbying on privacy issues. I suspect they just want to make sure they can continue to collect whatever data they want without the government bothering them. I don't think for a minute that Facebook and Google are interested in giving users more privacy protection. Where would their businesses be if they couldn't collect data about us and make it available to other businesses?
Re: Re: Re: Aren't there at least two issues here?
Sadly, an enormous amount of data is being collected on almost all of us. I don't trust industry to be a better keeper of it than government. So whatever it takes to further the privacy discussion, I'm all for.
1. Companies collecting huge amounts of data on people.
2. Governments asking for access to that data.
Seems like the companies want to continue to collect as much data as possible on their users. They just don't want to have to turn it over to anyone else unless they get paid handsomely for it.
I want to limit what companies know about me, so I'm all for privacy laws, but I want the process to start in the private sector first. Don't collect info about me, and if you won't do it voluntarily, I'll put as many roadblocks in your path as I can. The more you follow me on the Internet, the less I use it.
And where will this organization fall on privacy issues?
I'm going to guess that many of these companies will lobby hard against limiting their ability to collect and sell user data. And I am going to guess that if it's up to citizens, users will want to control their own data. I don't anticipate there will be across the board agreement between companies and users about privacy issues.
And I am also going to guess that the companies collecting this data will argue in Washington that they can't make a profit if they don't collect and sell this data. We'll hear the same kinds of arguments as we have heard from big content companies in the past about how they need to be able to sell content or they can't make a living. "Facebook and Google have to do this data collection and work with advertisers or how else will they make any money?"
She might trying setting it up as a private event. No advertising, "inviting" people rather than making it open to the public, and passing the hat (she can let people know what an appropriate "donation" might be, but they don't "have" to pay) rather than selling tickets.
I wonder if it might also be possible for a group of friends to agree in advance that they will each chip in $10 per person to be given to the performer, but they would still treat it as a private party because it isn't billed as a public event.
Like yeast humans are using up all their resources and we may die in our own waste and change the planet to other organisms to flourish,
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. There may be no reason to assume that humans are meant to continue on this planet. Life as we know it maybe temporary in the greater scheme of things. Something will continue to grow on Earth, but it may not be our species.
Because she is currently the most money-earning music project, Palmer will be on Kickstarter's success story list until another music project tops her.
This is actually a good thing in that whenever anyone writes about Kickstarter and successful projects, her name gets included in the story.
That's the value of going through Kickstarter rather than doing it on you own. You get the benefit of any attention Kickstarter gets for being Kickstarter.
I'm assuming Palmer has known all along the PR value of breaking a funding record on Kickstarter. She hasn't been the most successful across all categories, but she has certainly dominated the music category and will likely be their top music earner for a long time. I can't see any other musician topping her in the near future.
Whenever there is a thread on Techdirt saying government should stay out of as much as possible and let business run things, I think of how companies like to get bigger and control more stuff. And because they are accountable for quarterly financial reporting, they tend to do whatever it takes to boost short-term results at the expense of long-term thinking.
Any big company, tech-based or not, tends to morph into the same kind of monopoly if given the chance. Since my father was career military, I'm more comfortable with government-run programs than privately-run programs. Sure, the government screws things up, too, but in general, I think private companies are more likely to arrange things so that in the end they take the most from me and give me the least, because that's how they make money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Very true, but I'm kind of at a loss as to why you single out Kickstarter for questions like this.
I believe Kickstarter is changing our idea of what is a creative project. By using rewards to fundraise, the rewards are often part of the entire concept, which extends the initial project into something more complex.
What I have been asking is when is a supporter giving money for the reward and when is he giving money to support the project? To what extent is the reward itself valued and to what extent is it a token item tacked on to a financial solicitation? And if the reward itself is considered valuable, aside from its use to give money to the project organizer, then how do you compensate the reward creator? Should the extra value of the t-shirt go to the project creator or to the t-shirt creator? It's all about the value of creativity and who contributes to that value and how shall that contributor be rewarded.
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Big companies act like big companies
Therefore, when big tech companies fund "freedom of the Internet" campaigns, I now look at what's in it for them. I don't think they are acting in the interests of average citizens.
I also view with a great deal of skepticism arguments about privacy directed at the government when private companies want to do just as much information gathering. If you care about citizen privacy, you've got to question what companies are doing with that data just as much as what governments are doing with that data.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: Re: The world economy
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
Re: Re: The world economy
The wealthy will have their private concerts and hire people to make music. Everyone else will have friends over and make their own music.
On the post: Musician Chris Randall: Music Has No Monetary Value But The Connections It Forms Are Priceless
The world economy
What I would like to see is an expansion of creativity so that people, no matter how broke they may be, will make their own art, and not necessarily need to buy it to have it. The separation between artists and fans will blur to such an extent that we will all be artists. There won't be a collection of fans there to support the artists because there won't be a distinction between the two. Whatever is done to generate food, housing, health care, and so on will likely be done as the primary whole, with art just being an integral part of life, like breathing.
On the post: Google Caves To Hollywood Pressure: Will Now Punish Sites That Get Lots Of 'Valid' DMCA Notices
Re: Re: valid copyright removal notices
On the post: There Are Many Reasons Not To Give The NSA The Power To Spy On Your Info
Re: Do we have a third alternative?
Like I said, if it comes down to government versus corporations, I pick neither.
On the post: There Are Many Reasons Not To Give The NSA The Power To Spy On Your Info
Do we have a third alternative?
On the post: Let Your Senator Know Right Now That You Are Watching If They'll Vote To Protect Privacy
Re: Re: Aren't there at least two issues here?
On the post: Let Your Senator Know Right Now That You Are Watching If They'll Vote To Protect Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Aren't there at least two issues here?
On the post: Let Your Senator Know Right Now That You Are Watching If They'll Vote To Protect Privacy
Re: Aren't there at least two issues here?
On the post: Let Your Senator Know Right Now That You Are Watching If They'll Vote To Protect Privacy
Aren't there at least two issues here?
1. Companies collecting huge amounts of data on people.
2. Governments asking for access to that data.
Seems like the companies want to continue to collect as much data as possible on their users. They just don't want to have to turn it over to anyone else unless they get paid handsomely for it.
I want to limit what companies know about me, so I'm all for privacy laws, but I want the process to start in the private sector first. Don't collect info about me, and if you won't do it voluntarily, I'll put as many roadblocks in your path as I can. The more you follow me on the Internet, the less I use it.
On the post: SOPA/PIPA Wakes Up Internet Giants To Realize They Need To Be More Engaged In DC
And where will this organization fall on privacy issues?
And I am also going to guess that the companies collecting this data will argue in Washington that they can't make a profit if they don't collect and sell this data. We'll hear the same kinds of arguments as we have heard from big content companies in the past about how they need to be able to sell content or they can't make a living. "Facebook and Google have to do this data collection and work with advertisers or how else will they make any money?"
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re: ASCAP bullying
I wonder if it might also be possible for a group of friends to agree in advance that they will each chip in $10 per person to be given to the performer, but they would still treat it as a private party because it isn't billed as a public event.
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: The Planet, Or A Patent?
Re: Re: Climate Engineering
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. There may be no reason to assume that humans are meant to continue on this planet. Life as we know it maybe temporary in the greater scheme of things. Something will continue to grow on Earth, but it may not be our species.
On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?
Re: All things pass
On the post: Facebook IPO Mess Turning Into A Legal & Financial Circus As Morgan Stanley Agrees To Adjust Prices On Trades
What it means
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: Is dotcom crash 2 coming?
On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?
Palmer WILL be associated with Kickstarter
This is actually a good thing in that whenever anyone writes about Kickstarter and successful projects, her name gets included in the story.
That's the value of going through Kickstarter rather than doing it on you own. You get the benefit of any attention Kickstarter gets for being Kickstarter.
I'm assuming Palmer has known all along the PR value of breaking a funding record on Kickstarter. She hasn't been the most successful across all categories, but she has certainly dominated the music category and will likely be their top music earner for a long time. I can't see any other musician topping her in the near future.
On the post: Broadband In Crisis: Does The US Need Regulation To Force Meaningful Competition?
This is why I don't trust big business
Any big company, tech-based or not, tends to morph into the same kind of monopoly if given the chance. Since my father was career military, I'm more comfortable with government-run programs than privately-run programs. Sure, the government screws things up, too, but in general, I think private companies are more likely to arrange things so that in the end they take the most from me and give me the least, because that's how they make money.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I believe Kickstarter is changing our idea of what is a creative project. By using rewards to fundraise, the rewards are often part of the entire concept, which extends the initial project into something more complex.
What I have been asking is when is a supporter giving money for the reward and when is he giving money to support the project? To what extent is the reward itself valued and to what extent is it a token item tacked on to a financial solicitation? And if the reward itself is considered valuable, aside from its use to give money to the project organizer, then how do you compensate the reward creator? Should the extra value of the t-shirt go to the project creator or to the t-shirt creator? It's all about the value of creativity and who contributes to that value and how shall that contributor be rewarded.
Here's what I wrote several years ago. The Rise of the "Creative Thing"
Next >>