I'd say the true new model is the opportunity for millions of people to create stuff in their part-time and upload it.
YouTube just ran a crowdsourced video contest inviting people to submit videos that might be incorporated into a movie.
YouTube's 'Life in a Day' Receives 80,000 Video Submissions from Around the World: "Submissions for YouTube's Life in a Day project came to a close on Saturday, July 31, 2010, with the total number of submissions reaching 80,000 and representing 197 countries, in 45 different languages. Of the results, Executive Producer Ridley Scott (Robin Hood, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) said, 'I'm thrilled at the success of the Life in a Day project to date. The sheer number of uploads to the channel is astonishing and exceeds our expectations. I'm as fascinated as anyone by what kind of videos people have uploaded and the kind of film which will result from this innovative endeavor.'"
What's comparable today is that there is an explosion of writing now, too. It's online. Copyright really doesn't have much to do with it. Lots of people are blogging without much regard to whether or not they'll make any money.
I think today's environment is a technology issue rather than a copyright issue. You can self publish, so you do.
My feeling is that there is an explosion of all the creative fields. Lots of people doing photography, music, writing, design, etc. It's the democratization of the arts.
I've found a lawyer who would be interested in a class action suit against ASCAP and the likes, any one interested in joining in, post here please
Will the lawsuit be on behalf of venue owners or songwriters? Depending who the lawsuit benefits, then you can post the announcement on the appropriate forums.
I'll get into the difference between charity and a gift economy after I finish my article.
So please tell, how has the govt made the process easier. They seem to only have made it more difficult if you ask me.
I'm not talking about copyright. I'm talking about any function that the government has assumed. Take prisons, for example. If the local government isn't running it, then the community has to decide how to deal with disruptive people. It may be easier to pay the government to hire police and set up a prison than to ask each person in the community to personally chip in enough money to set up a prison.
There are many tasks in life that need to be done, and either you tax people and have the government do it, or each time you need something done, you need to get the community together, talk about it, price everything out, take up a collection to pay someone to do it, or you need to ask people in the community to take on the jobs themselves.
If you have ever lived in a community with a home owners association, you may find that the HOA is actually more stringent than your local government or zoning commission. The HOA may dictate what color to paint your house, whether or not you can have Christmas decorations, etc.
I live in a big condo complex. The HOA meets, decides what needs to be repaired, and then bills us. So in any given year, our HOA fees go up or down (usually up) to pay for whatever the HOA has decided needs to be improved.
I think making art and giving it away is the past and future. And I have been in talks with people about creating a non-profit which will support some musicians.
I have no problem at all with the concept. I think it is more the reality than monetizing music.
But I don't think the charity model is actually what a gift economy is.
In just a year or two we have gone from excitement about having people running their music careers as small businesses to now some people talking about a gift economy where you don't expect any financial return.
So the bigger question is how the artist survives when no money is coming in. In some situations, like Burning Man and small scale gift communities, no money changes hands. You share what you have and it's all supposed to work out. It's a bit utopian, but whenever capitalism starts getting ugly, it begins to look attractive again.
What really necessary for a gift economy is a strong sense of community. You need to actively be involved with what the people around you are doing.
What I try to do is to encourage more friendly talk in these discussions precisely because getting along is something that tends to be necessary if you want to replace money and government with user-generated communities. You have to work out your differences in ways that don't polarize people or it doesn't work. Eliminating laws and government usually requires replacing that with active participation. It can be more work than just letting the government handle it. Sometimes you have to meet with your neighbors nightly or weekly to get things worked out. It's like being married but to a bigger group of people.
I'm working on an economics piece right now on art and the gift economy. It's been covered before, but I notice that it's starting to creep back into music discussions again, so I want to explore what it will mean for artists and whether or not it is sustainable. The gift economy is different than pay-what-you-want or "give some stuff away for free and sell other stuff." It's based on giving it all away. Burning Man is probably the best example operating right now.
I'm standing on a street corner singing. I'm also selling apples. The singing is free and draws people in. But what I am selling are apples. I'm in the apple selling business. The singing may catch people's attention as they walk by, but I am selling apples.
Ah yes. And the record labels are in the plastic disc business. They should stop putting music on them, because that's not what they're selling, right?
Hasn't that been the confusion? Some people thought they were in the plastic disc selling business. Now that they have figured out they aren't in the plastic disc business, some of them have eliminated those. And if they are now giving away the music, they aren't in the music selling business anymore either.
You have to figure out what people are really paying you for to know what to sell.
For those who aren't familiar with this classic article, I'll point you to this:
What's happened here then is a shift in who gets paid rather than the payment.
Yes, I am spending more money than ever on media, but as you said, it is going to monthly connectivity fees, etc. It's no longer going to content creators (e.g., book authors, magazine publishers). And other expenses have also gone up (e.g., fuel costs, health insurance), so what might have gone to content creators in other forms (e.g., concerts) is now going to basic living expenses.
My life is no more "free" than it ever was. I'm redistributing the same amount of money, but giving some bill collectors more and others less. Whatever gets freed up in one place ends up going somewhere else, and usually not in the same industries. As one thing gets cheaper, something else (usually a necessity) gets more expensive.
And our music is so copyright infringent that we wouldn't have been allowed to even *record* an album before the advent of cheap digital audio programs.
Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
Well, if the toy is cool enough, it will likely sell itself. Sure, you can use the music to enhance the sale, but I'm trying to point out that when the emphasis starts to be placed on the toy, the music becomes the promotional tool rather than the focal point. People start to make their decisions based on the value of the toy to them, because the music itself they don't have to pay for. That they get for free, so it is the toy that becomes the deciding factor.
Or, for that matter, if the music is just the exposure vehicle, perhaps you can have the musicians donate the music, and then Sub Pop sells the toys. That's how some retailers do it. They get the music for free to enhance the sales of their own merchandise. They are retailers of merchandise and the music is given to them to gain exposure to the retailers' audience.
'Although Sub Pop is primarily known for its many fine artists and their really very fine recordings (also grunge), we're not at all opposed to expanding into the fine world of t-shirts, hats, beer cozies, and key chains,' Jaspers says.'We used to give many of these tchotchke items away for free in an effort to entice people to pay for the music, but we're considering flipping our strategy so that people pay for the toy and receive the music for free. Just a thought.'"
Mike, the example you give is not a viable one for authors. Just like a cookbook author can sell a grill, a musician can sell their favorite brand of instrument. Those are equatable.
It's the same with sports. Most sports sponsorships are related to the equipment and clothing they use. There's a logical connection for a professional golfer to get free equipment and perhaps even financial support from a company that makes clubs, a company that makes balls, a company that makes bags, a company that makes golf attire, etc.
The golfer gets free stuff and sometimes money from the manufacturer, and then the manufacturer makes its money by selling the items.
Generally the sports that offer the greatest opportunity for sponsorship are those where there's a big recreational market with average people buying lots of equipment for themselves to use. In contrast, a sport like figure skating doesn't come with lots of endorsement deals because the number of recreational athletes buying figure skates is pretty small.
The ultimate example of cross-promotion has been Disney. Develop a character and then license it for multiple products, create films, create a ride at a theme park, write one or more songs related to the character, develop games.
There's been a lot of talk lately about transmedia. In some cases people just mean cross-media and cross promotion. And in other cases they mean something new and different.
When the focus shifts to selling things related to the brand, you often see the "things" begin to dictate the content. So you see films in Hollywood produced because of licensing opportunities more than the potential quality of the film. If the studio knows it can make money selling toys, it may favor that movie over a film that has a stronger story but can't be merchandized as well.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
The rise of the part-time creator
YouTube just ran a crowdsourced video contest inviting people to submit videos that might be incorporated into a movie.
YouTube's 'Life in a Day' Receives 80,000 Video Submissions from Around the World: "Submissions for YouTube's Life in a Day project came to a close on Saturday, July 31, 2010, with the total number of submissions reaching 80,000 and representing 197 countries, in 45 different languages. Of the results, Executive Producer Ridley Scott (Robin Hood, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) said, 'I'm thrilled at the success of the Life in a Day project to date. The sheer number of uploads to the channel is astonishing and exceeds our expectations. I'm as fascinated as anyone by what kind of videos people have uploaded and the kind of film which will result from this innovative endeavor.'"
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows How Copyright Can Hinder The Spread Of Knowledge
Since we are talking about the past
I think today's environment is a technology issue rather than a copyright issue. You can self publish, so you do.
My feeling is that there is an explosion of all the creative fields. Lots of people doing photography, music, writing, design, etc. It's the democratization of the arts.
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re:
Will the lawsuit be on behalf of venue owners or songwriters? Depending who the lawsuit benefits, then you can post the announcement on the appropriate forums.
On the post: Abundance And Scarcity In Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So please tell, how has the govt made the process easier. They seem to only have made it more difficult if you ask me.
I'm not talking about copyright. I'm talking about any function that the government has assumed. Take prisons, for example. If the local government isn't running it, then the community has to decide how to deal with disruptive people. It may be easier to pay the government to hire police and set up a prison than to ask each person in the community to personally chip in enough money to set up a prison.
There are many tasks in life that need to be done, and either you tax people and have the government do it, or each time you need something done, you need to get the community together, talk about it, price everything out, take up a collection to pay someone to do it, or you need to ask people in the community to take on the jobs themselves.
If you have ever lived in a community with a home owners association, you may find that the HOA is actually more stringent than your local government or zoning commission. The HOA may dictate what color to paint your house, whether or not you can have Christmas decorations, etc.
I live in a big condo complex. The HOA meets, decides what needs to be repaired, and then bills us. So in any given year, our HOA fees go up or down (usually up) to pay for whatever the HOA has decided needs to be improved.
On the post: Abundance And Scarcity In Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what happens when arts funding is outsourced
On the post: Abundance And Scarcity In Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem at all with the concept. I think it is more the reality than monetizing music.
But I don't think the charity model is actually what a gift economy is.
In just a year or two we have gone from excitement about having people running their music careers as small businesses to now some people talking about a gift economy where you don't expect any financial return.
So the bigger question is how the artist survives when no money is coming in. In some situations, like Burning Man and small scale gift communities, no money changes hands. You share what you have and it's all supposed to work out. It's a bit utopian, but whenever capitalism starts getting ugly, it begins to look attractive again.
What really necessary for a gift economy is a strong sense of community. You need to actively be involved with what the people around you are doing.
What I try to do is to encourage more friendly talk in these discussions precisely because getting along is something that tends to be necessary if you want to replace money and government with user-generated communities. You have to work out your differences in ways that don't polarize people or it doesn't work. Eliminating laws and government usually requires replacing that with active participation. It can be more work than just letting the government handle it. Sometimes you have to meet with your neighbors nightly or weekly to get things worked out. It's like being married but to a bigger group of people.
On the post: Abundance And Scarcity In Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm working on an economics piece right now on art and the gift economy. It's been covered before, but I notice that it's starting to creep back into music discussions again, so I want to explore what it will mean for artists and whether or not it is sustainable. The gift economy is different than pay-what-you-want or "give some stuff away for free and sell other stuff." It's based on giving it all away. Burning Man is probably the best example operating right now.
On the post: Abundance And Scarcity In Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
I got my undergraduate degree in economics. Economists often differ in their theories.
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Here's an example
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
Hasn't that been the confusion? Some people thought they were in the plastic disc selling business. Now that they have figured out they aren't in the plastic disc business, some of them have eliminated those. And if they are now giving away the music, they aren't in the music selling business anymore either.
You have to figure out what people are really paying you for to know what to sell.
For those who aren't familiar with this classic article, I'll point you to this:
Marketing Myopia - Article in HBR
On the post: Abundance And Scarcity In Privacy
Re:
Yes, I am spending more money than ever on media, but as you said, it is going to monthly connectivity fees, etc. It's no longer going to content creators (e.g., book authors, magazine publishers). And other expenses have also gone up (e.g., fuel costs, health insurance), so what might have gone to content creators in other forms (e.g., concerts) is now going to basic living expenses.
My life is no more "free" than it ever was. I'm redistributing the same amount of money, but giving some bill collectors more and others less. Whatever gets freed up in one place ends up going somewhere else, and usually not in the same industries. As one thing gets cheaper, something else (usually a necessity) gets more expensive.
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
An even earlier cultural reference: Steal This Book
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
Or, for that matter, if the music is just the exposure vehicle, perhaps you can have the musicians donate the music, and then Sub Pop sells the toys. That's how some retailers do it. They get the music for free to enhance the sales of their own merchandise. They are retailers of merchandise and the music is given to them to gain exposure to the retailers' audience.
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
Sub Pop's Considering Selling Band Merch and Giving the Music Away For Free - Seattle Music - Reverb: "Today, Sub Pop's general manager, Megan Jasper, sent us a statement with more on the ideas that are swirling around the label's offices.
'Although Sub Pop is primarily known for its many fine artists and their really very fine recordings (also grunge), we're not at all opposed to expanding into the fine world of t-shirts, hats, beer cozies, and key chains,' Jaspers says.'We used to give many of these tchotchke items away for free in an effort to entice people to pay for the music, but we're considering flipping our strategy so that people pay for the toy and receive the music for free. Just a thought.'"
On the post: Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
Of course you could just eliminate the music
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
Re: Re: Re:
It's the same with sports. Most sports sponsorships are related to the equipment and clothing they use. There's a logical connection for a professional golfer to get free equipment and perhaps even financial support from a company that makes clubs, a company that makes balls, a company that makes bags, a company that makes golf attire, etc.
The golfer gets free stuff and sometimes money from the manufacturer, and then the manufacturer makes its money by selling the items.
Generally the sports that offer the greatest opportunity for sponsorship are those where there's a big recreational market with average people buying lots of equipment for themselves to use. In contrast, a sport like figure skating doesn't come with lots of endorsement deals because the number of recreational athletes buying figure skates is pretty small.
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
Look to Disney for cross-promotion
There's been a lot of talk lately about transmedia. In some cases people just mean cross-media and cross promotion. And in other cases they mean something new and different.
An Overview of Transmedia
On the post: Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?
What tends to happen
On the post: Telcos Close To 'Deal' On Net Neutrality That Gives Them Everything They Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: Money talks
Would you support new legislation that limits contributions to political candidates and limits the access lobbyists can have to lawmakers?
If not, do you see other solutions to corporations influencing laws?
Next >>