When you buy into a kickstarter project, you take a risk that it will be what you expect. Sometimes it will be better but sometimes it will be terrible. Everyone doesn't win every time.
That is a risk that a whole lot of people are willing to accept. Of course the Risk is not blind. Most Kickstarter projects have creators who have done something in the past to show that they can complete the project and make it to the expectations of the funders. But either way, there is risk involved, but it is acceptable risk. If the risk was not acceptable, the project will nto get funded (which a lot don't)
Mark my words: there will big complaints about fraud and misrepresentation with Kickstarter. There will be some great projects but there will be some that just don't turn out the way the sales copy promised. The consumer loses the usual protection that comes from seeing a finished product and waiting for reviews.
Complaints are nothing new. People complain about a lot of things. But again, that is a risk that both the creator and the funder accept. As for the "protection" brought about by reviews, I will simply point you to the 10 point scale of games reviews that in actual fact has a floor of 7/10. Hardly a very effective way to protect the consumer.
And don't be so sure about the lack of control of a single entity. The Kickstarter board has to approve every appeal that is made public. They reject a fair amount. So if you don't play by their rules, you can't reach the crowd. Oh sure, you can set up your own website but you could always do that.
I don't deny that Kickstarter holds some editorial control on what projects are accepted. That is their right as they control the site. However, the only option is not just creating your own site (although that is a good one too) there are plenty of other crowd funding sites out there. One commenter here pointed to Indiegogo as another similar site.
But again, you are confusing Kickstarter as the "solution" that we propose to replace legacy gatekeepers. It is simply one example of how art can be funded without signing your life away to a gatekeeper. There are still plenty of other ways to make money and make art.
I rarely give your comments a second thought let alone an actual first read. However, your continued insistance that Kickstarter is some kind of paywall you expect us to hate is really off base.
Under the old regime, artists had to get permission and funding from a single entity (be it a label, studio or publisher) in order to be able to create their art.
Under the new system, artists can appeal directly to the market for the necessary funding. If the market holds not interest in making something, then no one loses. The Market gets to avoid something it doesn't want and the artist saves time by not making something that is not commercially viable. On the other hand, if the market wants the product, it will fund it and the product will be made. Everyone wins. The market gets what it wants and the artists spends time making a successful product.
Why the former is better than the latter in your mind is completely lost on me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?
I am not asking how things would work under ideal circumstances with an ideal Content ID. I am asking how you are going to fix things in the here and now with the resources currently at your disposal.
Here is my best guess of the sequence of events:
1) Man uploads his video to YouTube.
2) Content ID scans it and flags it as having Rumblefish IP in it.
3) Youtube puts ads around video which pay money to Rumblefish.
4) Man disputes Rumblefish's claim.
5) Rumblefish employee "inspects" the complaint and decides the video is infringing, when it is clearly not.
6) Man's dispute is brushed aside and Rumblefish continues to get ad revenue for non-existent infringement.
We are not asking how to fix step 2. We are asking how you plan to fix step 5.
You are still missing DH's point. After Content ID falsely flagged it and the flag was disputed a REAL HUMAN from Rumblefish reafirmed that the video was infringing.
How are you going to fix that problem? When one of your employees can't tell the difference between birds chirping and one of your songs, that is a HUGE weak link in the system. Bigger than the automated Content ID system.
Because some people don't have the experience or have not learned from the experience of others to make a better decision. Sadly, there are a lot of people even today that think that the only way to succeed is to go through a gatekeeper such as label, publisher or studio. People are becoming wise to this issue, but not everyone has learned yet.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 12:52pm
Re:
Each helps, but they are hardly job creating panaceas. They are but tools.
I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. However, it has been claimed that the internet has been key for more job creation than the entertainment sector.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:55am
Re:
The only way a mistake could have been made in this instance was if the reviewer just flat out didn't watch the video. Had a human watched the video from beginning to end, there could not have been a mistake made. If that reviewer was like me and watched about 30 seconds of the video and got too bored to watch it all the way, I could see them saying to themselves "The infringing stuff is probably later. I will flag it anyway" That is absolutely wrong.
Of course, no amount of "training" will fix this problem.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:15am
Re:
Reading through the AmA, I am not all that convinced of the guy's sincerity. While the situation was resolved, it was only resolved after getting a media storm. Had this thing never blown up on Reddit and elsewhere, the video would still be falsely flagged today.
The problem is not that there is so much content for them to review, it is that the system is designed to flag as much content as possible without any controls in place.
One of the problems with prescreening content, which many here have pointed out, is that there is just too much stuff being uploaded to site like Youtube to be effectively screened. This situation proves that point. Content ID is meant to automate the process, but it fails on a way too regular basis to be useful for anyone but big interests like Rumblefish. Add to that the fact that any artists that wish to participate then have to sign a licensing deal with a company like Rumblefish and at the same time signing over up to 50% of the revenue to said company.
Another issue I saw in that thread and the FAQ linked is that even if you license the music properly, Rumblefish can still claim it and force ads around your legal content. This is double billing and should not stand.
You listed several extreme cases though. When the risk of being sued is 1:1Billion, that is actually really really low. Meaning that Risk cost will not have as much weight to it.
I don't agree with you. Let's look at a recent example from Nintendo.
People love Nintendo. People love JRPGs. Unfortunately, Nintendo decided back in 2010 to not release several highly anticipated JRP titles in the US. So although Nintendo was liked because they are Nintendo, they increased the cost of those games in several ways:
1) The Increased $M cost to purchase an import copy of the game.
2) The increased $T cost to ship the game.
3) The Increased $P cost to mod your North American Wii to play PAL games.
4) Each of those increases added together increased the $I cost of the game as people were upset with Nintendo for not releasing the games legally.
With all that in mind, if someone is going to go through the trouble to mod their Wii, it would be far quicker and cheaper to download an ISO of the game.
Granted, Nintendo has made amends in recent weeks and is bringing two of these games to the US this year. However, the $T cost is still high as one is coming out in the US 2 years after Japan and the other is coming out 1 year after Japan.
I hope that helps you understand where I was coming from.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:25pm
Re: Re: This could be known as the four factors test of piracy vs. buy
While it is never okay to just pirate something (meaning there is always an integrity cost to piracy), that cost can quickly be justified as the other 3 costs increase for the legal product.
So for our sake, let's say that the $M cost of a legal product and the $I cost of a pirated product are always equal and always static.
So for a legal product with a $50 $M cost, the pirated version has a $50 $I cost.
Your goal as a content creator is to leverage your control of the other costs so that the $P and $T costs are lower than the pirated copy. So if you can cut the $T and $P costs of the legal offering to as close to Zero as possible, you can mitigate any advantage the pirates have as long as your $I cost remains 0
So for the costs of a legal version:
$M - $50
$T - $0.5
$P - $0.5
$I - $0
and a pirated copy at:
$M - $0
$T - $0.5
$P - $0.5
$I - $50
It is pretty easy to convence a person to purchase rather than pirate. But as soon as you start driving any of those costs up, whether it is $T, $P or $I, you are making it far easier for the consumer to choose piracy.
The power is in the hands of the content creator. Don't forget that.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:17pm
Re:
Like Lars and I said, these are only four of many many more currencies considered when a consumer chooses between purchase and piracy.
Let's consider Risk though. There is a bit of risk involved in both legal purchases as well as piracy. If a product has DRM, there is a risk that the content will not work properly when you use it because your computer or other electronic device is not compatible. There is also the risk that the DRM will actually harm your computer. There is a Risk that down the road, the content creator will no longer support the product and the DRM attached thus removing your use completely.
Now the risk of piracy. For one, you have the risk that you are getting a botched copy, meaning it is not complete. This is easy to rectify and is pretty low. There is a risk that the product you download has a virus or worm attached. Depending on what type it is, this could be a pretty high risk, however it can be mitigated by an aware community. There is also the risk that you might get sued by the content creator. However, that has become very unpopular with content creators and the risk of getting sued is getting lower and lower by the day.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 10:50am
Re: Re: Re:
What a sad day we live in when unhappy customers who are ready to take their business elsewhere is the same thing as an "unruly mob". What a sad day when the loss of business is the equivalent of a "beatdown".
You are an idiot if you think that. In a free market we are free to choose which businesses we want to deal with. We are free to air our grievances with those businesses. We are free to accept change from those businesses or not.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Feb 2012 @ 10:29am
Re: Re: Re:
Godaddy had a bunch of its customers tell them they weren't going to do business with them because of its SOPA stance. That sounds like the free markets at work there. Not censorship.
On the post: Kickstarter Likely To Provide More Funding Than The National Endowment For The Arts In 2012
Re: Re: Re: Another Paywall
Apparently, not as bad as you.
When you buy into a kickstarter project, you take a risk that it will be what you expect. Sometimes it will be better but sometimes it will be terrible. Everyone doesn't win every time.
That is a risk that a whole lot of people are willing to accept. Of course the Risk is not blind. Most Kickstarter projects have creators who have done something in the past to show that they can complete the project and make it to the expectations of the funders. But either way, there is risk involved, but it is acceptable risk. If the risk was not acceptable, the project will nto get funded (which a lot don't)
Mark my words: there will big complaints about fraud and misrepresentation with Kickstarter. There will be some great projects but there will be some that just don't turn out the way the sales copy promised. The consumer loses the usual protection that comes from seeing a finished product and waiting for reviews.
Complaints are nothing new. People complain about a lot of things. But again, that is a risk that both the creator and the funder accept. As for the "protection" brought about by reviews, I will simply point you to the 10 point scale of games reviews that in actual fact has a floor of 7/10. Hardly a very effective way to protect the consumer.
And don't be so sure about the lack of control of a single entity. The Kickstarter board has to approve every appeal that is made public. They reject a fair amount. So if you don't play by their rules, you can't reach the crowd. Oh sure, you can set up your own website but you could always do that.
I don't deny that Kickstarter holds some editorial control on what projects are accepted. That is their right as they control the site. However, the only option is not just creating your own site (although that is a good one too) there are plenty of other crowd funding sites out there. One commenter here pointed to Indiegogo as another similar site.
But again, you are confusing Kickstarter as the "solution" that we propose to replace legacy gatekeepers. It is simply one example of how art can be funded without signing your life away to a gatekeeper. There are still plenty of other ways to make money and make art.
On the post: Kickstarter Likely To Provide More Funding Than The National Endowment For The Arts In 2012
Re: Another Paywall
I rarely give your comments a second thought let alone an actual first read. However, your continued insistance that Kickstarter is some kind of paywall you expect us to hate is really off base.
Under the old regime, artists had to get permission and funding from a single entity (be it a label, studio or publisher) in order to be able to create their art.
Under the new system, artists can appeal directly to the market for the necessary funding. If the market holds not interest in making something, then no one loses. The Market gets to avoid something it doesn't want and the artist saves time by not making something that is not commercially viable. On the other hand, if the market wants the product, it will fund it and the product will be made. Everyone wins. The market gets what it wants and the artists spends time making a successful product.
Why the former is better than the latter in your mind is completely lost on me.
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?
Here is my best guess of the sequence of events:
1) Man uploads his video to YouTube.
2) Content ID scans it and flags it as having Rumblefish IP in it.
3) Youtube puts ads around video which pay money to Rumblefish.
4) Man disputes Rumblefish's claim.
5) Rumblefish employee "inspects" the complaint and decides the video is infringing, when it is clearly not.
6) Man's dispute is brushed aside and Rumblefish continues to get ad revenue for non-existent infringement.
We are not asking how to fix step 2. We are asking how you plan to fix step 5.
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content ID the problem?
How are you going to fix that problem? When one of your employees can't tell the difference between birds chirping and one of your songs, that is a HUGE weak link in the system. Bigger than the automated Content ID system.
On the post: Wale: I Just Want To Make Music & Give It To Fans For Free... They'll Support Me
Re:
On the post: Help Create An 'Innovation Agenda' You Wish Politicians Would Support
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Help Create An 'Innovation Agenda' You Wish Politicians Would Support
Re:
I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. However, it has been claimed that the internet has been key for more job creation than the entertainment sector.
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Re:
Of course, no amount of "training" will fix this problem.
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Re:
The problem is not that there is so much content for them to review, it is that the system is designed to flag as much content as possible without any controls in place.
One of the problems with prescreening content, which many here have pointed out, is that there is just too much stuff being uploaded to site like Youtube to be effectively screened. This situation proves that point. Content ID is meant to automate the process, but it fails on a way too regular basis to be useful for anyone but big interests like Rumblefish. Add to that the fact that any artists that wish to participate then have to sign a licensing deal with a company like Rumblefish and at the same time signing over up to 50% of the revenue to said company.
Another issue I saw in that thread and the FAQ linked is that even if you license the music properly, Rumblefish can still claim it and force ads around your legal content. This is double billing and should not stand.
This is not the way to move forward.
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: Re: Re: This could be known as the four factors test of piracy vs. buy
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Integrity Cost
People love Nintendo. People love JRPGs. Unfortunately, Nintendo decided back in 2010 to not release several highly anticipated JRP titles in the US. So although Nintendo was liked because they are Nintendo, they increased the cost of those games in several ways:
1) The Increased $M cost to purchase an import copy of the game.
2) The increased $T cost to ship the game.
3) The Increased $P cost to mod your North American Wii to play PAL games.
4) Each of those increases added together increased the $I cost of the game as people were upset with Nintendo for not releasing the games legally.
With all that in mind, if someone is going to go through the trouble to mod their Wii, it would be far quicker and cheaper to download an ISO of the game.
Granted, Nintendo has made amends in recent weeks and is bringing two of these games to the US this year. However, the $T cost is still high as one is coming out in the US 2 years after Japan and the other is coming out 1 year after Japan.
I hope that helps you understand where I was coming from.
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Sounds like a sharp guy
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: This could be known as the four factors test of piracy vs. buy
So for our sake, let's say that the $M cost of a legal product and the $I cost of a pirated product are always equal and always static.
So for a legal product with a $50 $M cost, the pirated version has a $50 $I cost.
Your goal as a content creator is to leverage your control of the other costs so that the $P and $T costs are lower than the pirated copy. So if you can cut the $T and $P costs of the legal offering to as close to Zero as possible, you can mitigate any advantage the pirates have as long as your $I cost remains 0
So for the costs of a legal version:
$M - $50
$T - $0.5
$P - $0.5
$I - $0
and a pirated copy at:
$M - $0
$T - $0.5
$P - $0.5
$I - $50
It is pretty easy to convence a person to purchase rather than pirate. But as soon as you start driving any of those costs up, whether it is $T, $P or $I, you are making it far easier for the consumer to choose piracy.
The power is in the hands of the content creator. Don't forget that.
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re:
Let's consider Risk though. There is a bit of risk involved in both legal purchases as well as piracy. If a product has DRM, there is a risk that the content will not work properly when you use it because your computer or other electronic device is not compatible. There is also the risk that the DRM will actually harm your computer. There is a Risk that down the road, the content creator will no longer support the product and the DRM attached thus removing your use completely.
Now the risk of piracy. For one, you have the risk that you are getting a botched copy, meaning it is not complete. This is easy to rectify and is pretty low. There is a risk that the product you download has a virus or worm attached. Depending on what type it is, this could be a pretty high risk, however it can be mitigated by an aware community. There is also the risk that you might get sued by the content creator. However, that has become very unpopular with content creators and the risk of getting sued is getting lower and lower by the day.
I hope that helps with that aspect.
On the post: Australian Collection Society Upset It Doesn't Get To Collect Extra For Radio Simulcasts Online
Double Dipping
On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It
Re: Re: Re:
You are an idiot if you think that. In a free market we are free to choose which businesses we want to deal with. We are free to air our grievances with those businesses. We are free to accept change from those businesses or not.
This is not censorship. This is business.
On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>