The intellectual property debate has been framed as to be about "pirates vs creators" and they feel the need to "justify" their anti-ip position as if the onus was on them to provide an alternative legal framework to compensate the creators for their "lost income".
My superficial image of them is a group associated with free music, which I think is an inconsequential issue in the greater global economy. That's why I keep pointing people to the P2P Foundation, because it has a much bigger goal, which is to change the entire structure of the world economy to one that is more sustainable. Whether or not one thinks the ideas of the P2P Foundation are workable, at least there is something in depth there to read and discuss.
My primary interest is in sustainability, so that trumps anything to do with IP laws for me. Now, it is entirely possible for those issues to be tied together, as the P2P Foundation does, but if the Pirate Party is primarily about getting rid of IP laws, but another group is developing workable sustainability economics, it will be the latter group I would support.
When Capitalism Ends and P2P Markets Thrive: "What we are advocating is a system which comes down to three core components, the first is the community and the commons, where free information is available for the common good but yet there are costs to maintain such infrastructure. While the community provides content, code and designs, the second component required is the foundation, a new type of nonprofit. In Wikipedia's case the Wikimedia Foundation raises money to fund the infrastructure. We then complete the system with the final component, the 'entrepreneurial coalition'; this is where we take care of the livelihood of the people."
For those of you afraid to read the article link I posted because you might assume it is some sort of "liberal" propaganda, I'll point out that it is in The American Conservative.
It's also been fun watching the Kochs trying to take back the Cato Foundation because it doesn't espouse their vision of libertarianism.
When one claims to be libertarian and then tells the obama camp how to win in 2012, well I don't think any Libertarian who fully embraces the true original intent of the constitution and the bill of rights could in any way support obama.
I'll repost this link for you, too. Most of the anti-Obama camp is no more libertarian or "conservative" than anyone else.
The American Conservative - Marx’s Tea Party : "The Tea Party types also tend toward a patriotic love of many of the state’s 'public servants.' Beck, Palin and Limbaugh question Obama’s domestic politics, but they always encourage us to trust the police, the prosecutors, and all who serve in the military. But under radical class analysis, if welfare bums and teachers are on the public dole, so too is everyone who carries a gun for the regime. While some libertarians and conservatives envision a limited state where soldiers and cops would be among the only legitimate government employees, today conservatives simultaneously describe the state as tyranny while worshipping those who carry out its orders."
There are no liberals in politics at the national level. None. There are certainly people who are called that, usually as a form of derision, but speaking as a liberal, there's nobody that I recognize as one of my own.
A defining publication in my life was the Whole Earth Catalog. There was a lot of DIY ethic. And sustainability, back-to-the-earth, localization types learn a lot of the same skills as right wing survivalists. So there's more commonality on both ends of the spectrum than many realize.
But when you have people telling you that sustainable practices (e.g., bike riding, generating your own renewable energy to go off-grid) are a worldwide Communist plot, then you end up with people not seeing how much they might have in common.
I'm comfortable with big government because that's what I grew up with. My father was career Navy and the government gave us housing, medical care, schools, places to shop. etc. It was as government-owned as you can get and it was a good life.
However, at this point I'd be happy to go to a system of community governance. The place I live, Boulder, is more liberal than most. One nickname is "The People's Republic of Boulder." I think we'd be happy to run our own little world without having to deal with crazy people in DC.
This is a very interesting article about how today's "conservatives" aren't, in a traditional sense.
The American Conservative -- Marx’s Tea Party: "Conservatives have been doing this since the fifties. In order to enhance the popularity of their cause, they pretend to be the ideology of low-taxes and decreased spending, espousing the many benefits of austere government. Then, as soon as they are in power, they quickly forget all about the ideals of small government and focus on what really matters to them: nationalism, war, and doling out the spoils of political victory to their friends."
Perhaps if we did some simulations for each proposed idea, we could view the results in advance to see if they would work. However, we have so many people who will throw out anything that doesn't support what they already believe that perhaps even facts no longer matter. We're sort of in a new "Dark Ages" where myth and rumor are embraced more than anything tested and verified by the scientific method. If the facts don't fit the belief, repudiate the process by which they were discovered.
Also, I have been curious whether it would help to take out personalities and only talk about specific ideas without linking them to people or parties. We have all seen cases where the idea is considered great if someone from one party supports it, but the same idea is trashed when someone from the other party supports it. Politics has become a career path where those involved in it will say anything to get elected.
And I think one of the interesting aspects of Kickstarter is the transparency. People can see how much money is coming in for each project. So if the various collaborators on the project didn't work out an agreement beforehand but now see how much money is coming in, they may adjust their terms accordingly.
Let's say, for example, you were going to cut a musician a break because he had no money. But then he raised $300,000 on Kickstarter. I'm going to guess that now you know he has money, you won't feel the necessity to give him your work for free or at a rock bottom price.
Like I said before, I have been pondering all of this for several years as I watched musicians coming up with creative ways to reward contributors on Kickstarter. I've wondered how the Kickstarter money was going to be divvied up among people working across media.
This is a topic I have been curious about since the beginning of Kickstarter.
A number of projects offer rewards that go beyond music. There might be art or some sort of other object.
So I have wondered about the income sharing arrangements for these. Does the musician contract out for the items, creating a work-for-hire arrangement (e.g., he hires someone to make a design for a t-shirt and then owns the design and make sell multiples)?
Or does the musician team up with others and they share in the income in some fashion? And if they share in it, how do they decide what each earns? Do they split it up equally? Do they get different amounts, depending on how much each contributes? And if that, how do they decide? By the amount of time put in? By the commercial going rate? By how much "fame" each brings to the project?
Amanda Palmer has multiple people contributing to her Kickstarter project so I shot her a question to see how she handles it. What's the arrangement when they just hit their goal and what's the arrangement when they greatly exceed their goal?
There's been so little discussion of music/multi-collaboration income sharing that I'm curious how various people divide it up. In some cases, the musicians may be hoping that the artists/photographers/graphic artists are donating their contributions in exchange for exposure, but if they are, I'm guessing that if the project is very successful, the volunteers are going to want some compensation, even if they don't think about it until after the fact.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
If you add up all the money given to musicians, vs. the money given to watchmakers and video game developers, I'd wager that more people gave money, total, to musicians. In fact, I'd say it wouldn't even be close.
If you look at the link I posted, you will see the total given to music projects versus the total given to other projects. And yes, in the aggregate music gets a lot of money. But for individual projects, music hasn't reached the big leagues compared to other categories. I've been pondering why that might be.
But you actually have made a point I've been making over and over again about the reality for musicians. There are so many of them that the amount going to each one tends to be small. And I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but it needs to be addressed when people talk about opportunities. For most musicians, music alone won't generate a living wage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
Maybe it's the innate understanding that a Pebble watch (can't wait for mine!) is a tangible, scarce good that requires money to make, but a song only has to be recorded once.
I definitely think buying an object that you want and that might be offered at a discount if you prepay is a big reason why successful design projects do well.
Music projects as a whole don't seem to offer the same kinds of compelling objects to buy. Palmer's project has already raised the bar for music projects, but I'm guessing it won't hit the $1 million mark. I don't know that, though.
I've just been intrigued by what works and doesn't work on Kickstarter, so whenever I can learn something about the process, I pay attention.
That's because a music album doesn't require a million+ dollars to produce.
I don't think that is a factor because for the really lucrative Kickstarter projects, the people raise considerably more than their goals. The Pebble watch organizers wanted to raise $100,000 but got $7 million. I don't think all those who chipped in money thought the watch makers "needed" $7 million.
If that is what is actually happening, then that would suggest that those who chip in money have assigned a value to a concept and rate music lower than a watch or a game. They see music as easier to make than a watch or a game. And they don't factor in the cost of touring, putting together a light show, etc. They have decided there aren't a lot of additional expenses to being a musician. Is that your interpretation?
Perhaps it's because it costs considerably less to record a song that has already been written than it does to code out a game, or design and produce a new gadget?
But for the Pebble watch, the project organizers asked for $100,000 and raised $7 million. I don't think the people paying them were thinking that the organizers "needed" $7 million but that a band does not.
As of right now, Palmer is at $204,644, so she's very close to topping the current highest music project, and with 30 more days to go, she is likely to substantially exceed it.
I could be reading it wrong but the graphics in the articles are pointing at money raised not to an ROI.
I wasn't talking about ROI. I was noting that music doesn't seem to generate significantly large donation totals. Music as a category brings in lots of money, but individual projects aren't reaching the heights that we are seeing in design and gaming. There's been no million dollar music project. The biggest so far has been $207,980. Perhaps Palmer's latest project will top that, but I can't see her reaching the same level as the top projects in other categories.
In theory there's no reason why music couldn't have a million dollar project, but so far nothing has been close. I'm guessing that fans already know they can get the recorded music for free anyway, and in most cases there's no reward compelling enough to get lots of people to pay in advance for it.
It's interesting how much more lucrative design and games have been on Kickstarter than music. There are a lot of music projects and in the aggregate they have been lucrative, but none of them has produced a million payout yet. I suppose they don't scale like a cool gadget or game does.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Here's more background.
Boulder gears up for legal battle over the grid — Cleantech News and Analysis: "Although Boulder thought about forming its own utility for a while, it began that process in earnest when Xcel sought to renew its franchise agreement. The city asked voters last November whether it should investigate the process and costs of running its own utility. Voters narrowly approved a measure to give the city a go-ahead and another measure to allow the city to collect $1.9 million in taxes per year until the end of 2017 and use the money for hiring legal counsel and consultants to figure out various costs."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
I don't think I'd call it socialization.
I suppose he is using the term in the sense that a community-owned utility is a socialized utility rather than a privately run utility. And that would be different than a co-op, which is a collection of members.
Boulder just voted to take over its utilities if possible rather than use the private company that had been delivering them because the city wanted more control over how much renewable energy was being used.
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Re: Reception in Germany
My superficial image of them is a group associated with free music, which I think is an inconsequential issue in the greater global economy. That's why I keep pointing people to the P2P Foundation, because it has a much bigger goal, which is to change the entire structure of the world economy to one that is more sustainable. Whether or not one thinks the ideas of the P2P Foundation are workable, at least there is something in depth there to read and discuss.
My primary interest is in sustainability, so that trumps anything to do with IP laws for me. Now, it is entirely possible for those issues to be tied together, as the P2P Foundation does, but if the Pirate Party is primarily about getting rid of IP laws, but another group is developing workable sustainability economics, it will be the latter group I would support.
When Capitalism Ends and P2P Markets Thrive: "What we are advocating is a system which comes down to three core components, the first is the community and the commons, where free information is available for the common good but yet there are costs to maintain such infrastructure. While the community provides content, code and designs, the second component required is the foundation, a new type of nonprofit. In Wikipedia's case the Wikimedia Foundation raises money to fund the infrastructure. We then complete the system with the final component, the 'entrepreneurial coalition'; this is where we take care of the livelihood of the people."
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Here's a good backgrounder to read
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Re: Re:
It's also been fun watching the Kochs trying to take back the Cato Foundation because it doesn't espouse their vision of libertarianism.
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Re:
I'll repost this link for you, too. Most of the anti-Obama camp is no more libertarian or "conservative" than anyone else.
The American Conservative - Marx’s Tea Party : "The Tea Party types also tend toward a patriotic love of many of the state’s 'public servants.' Beck, Palin and Limbaugh question Obama’s domestic politics, but they always encourage us to trust the police, the prosecutors, and all who serve in the military. But under radical class analysis, if welfare bums and teachers are on the public dole, so too is everyone who carries a gun for the regime. While some libertarians and conservatives envision a limited state where soldiers and cops would be among the only legitimate government employees, today conservatives simultaneously describe the state as tyranny while worshipping those who carry out its orders."
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A defining publication in my life was the Whole Earth Catalog. There was a lot of DIY ethic. And sustainability, back-to-the-earth, localization types learn a lot of the same skills as right wing survivalists. So there's more commonality on both ends of the spectrum than many realize.
But when you have people telling you that sustainable practices (e.g., bike riding, generating your own renewable energy to go off-grid) are a worldwide Communist plot, then you end up with people not seeing how much they might have in common.
I'm comfortable with big government because that's what I grew up with. My father was career Navy and the government gave us housing, medical care, schools, places to shop. etc. It was as government-owned as you can get and it was a good life.
However, at this point I'd be happy to go to a system of community governance. The place I live, Boulder, is more liberal than most. One nickname is "The People's Republic of Boulder." I think we'd be happy to run our own little world without having to deal with crazy people in DC.
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Re: Re: Re:
The American Conservative -- Marx’s Tea Party: "Conservatives have been doing this since the fifties. In order to enhance the popularity of their cause, they pretend to be the ideology of low-taxes and decreased spending, espousing the many benefits of austere government. Then, as soon as they are in power, they quickly forget all about the ideals of small government and focus on what really matters to them: nationalism, war, and doling out the spoils of political victory to their friends."
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Let's test all proposals with a Sims-type game
Also, I have been curious whether it would help to take out personalities and only talk about specific ideas without linking them to people or parties. We have all seen cases where the idea is considered great if someone from one party supports it, but the same idea is trashed when someone from the other party supports it. Politics has become a career path where those involved in it will say anything to get elected.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Pricing for Kickstarter collaborations
Let's say, for example, you were going to cut a musician a break because he had no money. But then he raised $300,000 on Kickstarter. I'm going to guess that now you know he has money, you won't feel the necessity to give him your work for free or at a rock bottom price.
Like I said before, I have been pondering all of this for several years as I watched musicians coming up with creative ways to reward contributors on Kickstarter. I've wondered how the Kickstarter money was going to be divvied up among people working across media.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Pricing for Kickstarter collaborations
A number of projects offer rewards that go beyond music. There might be art or some sort of other object.
So I have wondered about the income sharing arrangements for these. Does the musician contract out for the items, creating a work-for-hire arrangement (e.g., he hires someone to make a design for a t-shirt and then owns the design and make sell multiples)?
Or does the musician team up with others and they share in the income in some fashion? And if they share in it, how do they decide what each earns? Do they split it up equally? Do they get different amounts, depending on how much each contributes? And if that, how do they decide? By the amount of time put in? By the commercial going rate? By how much "fame" each brings to the project?
Amanda Palmer has multiple people contributing to her Kickstarter project so I shot her a question to see how she handles it. What's the arrangement when they just hit their goal and what's the arrangement when they greatly exceed their goal?
There's been so little discussion of music/multi-collaboration income sharing that I'm curious how various people divide it up. In some cases, the musicians may be hoping that the artists/photographers/graphic artists are donating their contributions in exchange for exposure, but if they are, I'm guessing that if the project is very successful, the volunteers are going to want some compensation, even if they don't think about it until after the fact.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
If you look at the link I posted, you will see the total given to music projects versus the total given to other projects. And yes, in the aggregate music gets a lot of money. But for individual projects, music hasn't reached the big leagues compared to other categories. I've been pondering why that might be.
But you actually have made a point I've been making over and over again about the reality for musicians. There are so many of them that the amount going to each one tends to be small. And I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but it needs to be addressed when people talk about opportunities. For most musicians, music alone won't generate a living wage.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I definitely think buying an object that you want and that might be offered at a discount if you prepay is a big reason why successful design projects do well.
Music projects as a whole don't seem to offer the same kinds of compelling objects to buy. Palmer's project has already raised the bar for music projects, but I'm guessing it won't hit the $1 million mark. I don't know that, though.
I've just been intrigued by what works and doesn't work on Kickstarter, so whenever I can learn something about the process, I pay attention.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I don't think that is a factor because for the really lucrative Kickstarter projects, the people raise considerably more than their goals. The Pebble watch organizers wanted to raise $100,000 but got $7 million. I don't think all those who chipped in money thought the watch makers "needed" $7 million.
If that is what is actually happening, then that would suggest that those who chip in money have assigned a value to a concept and rate music lower than a watch or a game. They see music as easier to make than a watch or a game. And they don't factor in the cost of touring, putting together a light show, etc. They have decided there aren't a lot of additional expenses to being a musician. Is that your interpretation?
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
But for the Pebble watch, the project organizers asked for $100,000 and raised $7 million. I don't think the people paying them were thinking that the organizers "needed" $7 million but that a band does not.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
No, I don't. Just speculation on my part.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I wasn't talking about ROI. I was noting that music doesn't seem to generate significantly large donation totals. Music as a category brings in lots of money, but individual projects aren't reaching the heights that we are seeing in design and gaming. There's been no million dollar music project. The biggest so far has been $207,980. Perhaps Palmer's latest project will top that, but I can't see her reaching the same level as the top projects in other categories.
In theory there's no reason why music couldn't have a million dollar project, but so far nothing has been close. I'm guessing that fans already know they can get the recorded music for free anyway, and in most cases there's no reward compelling enough to get lots of people to pay in advance for it.
On the post: No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
Three Years of Kickstarter Projects - Graphic - NYTimes.com
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Boulder gears up for legal battle over the grid — Cleantech News and Analysis: "Although Boulder thought about forming its own utility for a while, it began that process in earnest when Xcel sought to renew its franchise agreement. The city asked voters last November whether it should investigate the process and costs of running its own utility. Voters narrowly approved a measure to give the city a go-ahead and another measure to allow the city to collect $1.9 million in taxes per year until the end of 2017 and use the money for hiring legal counsel and consultants to figure out various costs."
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
I suppose he is using the term in the sense that a community-owned utility is a socialized utility rather than a privately run utility. And that would be different than a co-op, which is a collection of members.
Boulder just voted to take over its utilities if possible rather than use the private company that had been delivering them because the city wanted more control over how much renewable energy was being used.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Shareable: Co-Op Nation: Interview with Gar Alperovitz: "... 25 percent of the American electric system is either co-op or municipal, essentially socialized."
Next >>