Nearly two years ago, we had a post pointing out that it was silly for people to complain when the "rich and famous" made use of platforms like Kickstarter. That story was about Tom Hanks' son Colin looking for funds to complete a documentary. As we noted, it made perfect sense to use Kickstarter, since it's also a nice marketing platform and a way to connect with fans. I don't understand why this seems to get people up in arms, but it continues to this day. You may have heard about the high profile failure of Bjork's Kickstarter campaign. She sought £375,000 not for a new album, but to make a port of her last album's app, Biophillia, from iOS to Android and Windows 8. The original Biophilia won some rave reviews for pushing the boundaries of what an album was... but also was widely criticized for being platform specific to iOS. When it came out, Bjork said she hoped that those on other platforms would just "pirate" it, but we never understood why she didn't release it on multiple platforms.

Apparently, the answer was that however the app was designed, it would be insanely expensive to port to other platforms. That seems like much more of a design mistake than anything else. It seems likely that her project failed for a few key reasons, including that it was just about porting an app that came out years ago, rather than anything new. Also, the "rewards" were somewhat unimpressive. And, of course, Bjork fans who were iPhone users had little reason to contribute as well. There's also the big one: unlike some other stars, Bjork really hasn't embraced connecting and communicating with her fans. That's her choice, of course. No one says she needs to. But, it's much harder to raise a ton of crowdfunded money that way.

Still, many are saying that the project failed because she's rich and famous and could have just paid for everything herself. But that seems silly. There are plenty of ways that the rich and famous can make use of crowdfunding and plenty of reasons why it makes sense to do so. The project failed because it was a bad project for crowdfunding, and because Bjork isn't necessarily connected with her fans in a way that makes sense for crowdfunding.

Amanda Palmer, who remains an example of "doing Kickstarter right" has weighed in on this issue, making some really good points about why anyone should be able to use Kickstarter, even the rich and famous. Here are a few snippets, but the whole thing is worth reading:

crowdfunding should, by its very nature, be available to EVERYBODY....

here's what i think: THE MARKET IS EFFICIENT.

if ANYBODY wants to give a go at having the community help them with a project, that’s the ARTISTS prerogative. if it fails, then the interest wasn't there.

it should't matter if it's justin bieber, obama, the new kids of the block reunion project, lance armstrong, oprah, or the friendless 18-year old down the street who's been hiding in his bedroom making EDM music.
ANYBODY CAN ASK. that's democracy.

and since crowdfunding is – by definition – in the hands of the community: THE COMMUNITY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER A PROJECT IS SUCCESSFUL.

And yet, people still get upset. To some extent, this feels a bit like "hipsterism." People feel that these platforms are special because the rich and famous haven't necessarily discovered them yet. But why is it so wrong if they do find them and do use them? If people want to support the projects they will, and if they don't, they won't. That's what makes these platforms so useful.

As Kickstarter continues to mature as a viable platform for funding creative projects, there are still audible whispers expressing concern over fraud and scams on the site. Leigh previously noted one such case, in which the internet community outted a fake game's funding attempt, detailing how that community was responsible for getting the project removed from Kickstarter entirely. At the same time, he discussed how fraud can be found in the more traditional arenas, as can failures. But Kickstarter stories like this seem to garner, what is in my estimation, an undue amount of fear over frauds and scams.

So I expect more of the same as we learn of another case of a Kickstarter project claiming false affiliations and making promises it couldn't hope to keep. Dirty Bird Sports, as the group was called, claimed that it was raising funds to put out an NCAA football game for the PS3 and Xbox 360, and claimed to have the backing of several well-known names in the football world, all of which turned out to be false.

Boasting a backing from well-known Atlanta Falcons running back Jamal Anderson, the project claimed that it was hoping to create a competitor to EA's NCAA Football game and only needed the relatively paltry sum of $500,000 to develop a PS3 and Xbox 360 title.

However, many of the 3D models and assets compiled by the group, calling itself "Dirty Bird Sports", were found to have been lifted from sites selling other artists work, a roundup of which can be seen at Kotaku.

While some might freak out over this, that last bit is what's most interesting to me, and is the proper evidence for pushing back against those claiming the sky is falling. Once again, a vibrant internet community has assisted in outing the liars and scammers, proactively preventing any actual financial harm from occurring. While that same community may not end up with a 100% success rate in stopping such cases, I see these instances as an indication of the maturing of the platform and a direct result of the growth of interest in Kickstarter as a whole. As with any other aspect of crowdsourcing, the benefits rise as the size of the crowd increases. That the internet community is so successful in warning the rest of us of these dangers should be taken as a selling point of Kickstarter, not some scary boogeyman.

A few months ago, we criticized Kickstarter for the way it handled DMCA notices -- basically just deleting the project entirely, without providing any additional info. There didn't appear to be a counternotice proposal or anything like that. That post actually resulted in a nice conversation with Kickstarter about ways in which they might improve their DMCA process. I'm happy to see that with another high profile DMCA takedown sent to the site, the situation has been handled somewhat better, though I still have some questions about it.

The takedown involved the Gamestick project, an Android-based video game console the size of a USB stick, built into a controller. It's a really cool project, which you can check out here. Not surprisingly, it has received tons of attention, buzz and (of course) donations. But, yesterday, for a brief time, the campaign disappeared for a period of time due to a DMCA takedown. Unlike in the past, the message on the missing page at least contained a little more info: Furthermore, Kickstarter also sent a notice to all backers of the project:

This is a message from Kickstarter Support. We’re writing to inform you that a project you backed, GameStick: The Most Portable TV Games Console Ever Created, is the subject of an intellectual property dispute.

The law requires that we remove the project from public view until the process is complete or the dispute is resolved. If we are not able to re-post it within 30 days, we will cancel the project, all pledge authorizations will expire, and the project will be permanently unavailable.

If you’d like to manage your pledge, you can do so through the project page:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/…ever?ref=email

If you have any questions, we encourage you to message the creator directly. You can also do this from the project page.

Thanks so much for your patience and cooperation,
Kickstarter

The campaign was turned back on after a little while, and the full story came out. Apparently, one of the video games that the company shows working in the video was not "cleared" for use by its creators, and they sent the takedown. Playjam edited the video in the question and Kickstarter quickly put the video back up.

All's well that end's well, though there are still a few oddities here. First off, Kickstarter's notice (while better than no notice!) isn't really accurate. The law does not require Kickstarter to remove the project from view. It does provide incentives for Kickstarter to do so, but that's not the same thing. Of course, Kickstarter has the right to remove whatever project it wants, and no one expects them to have to make a full call on each takedown notice, but it's simply not accurate to say they're required to do so. It's just that they risk losing safe harbors if they don't.

The other oddity: the copyright claim itself. I can't see how the video itself or anything on the campaign page would be infringing. Misleading? Perhaps, if it implied that the specific game would be on the device that wasn't fully licensed. But that's not a copyright issue. The video itself might be evidence that PlayJam itself was infringing on the nameless video game company's copyright with its use of the game. Perhaps there's an argument that whatever was seen of the game in the video would be a copyright issue, but that seems like a huge stretch. There would be strong de minimis or fair use responses in both cases. Also, unless there are significant additional circumstances, it seems odd that the video game company didn't embrace this as a way to get free publicity from a very popular Kickstarter project. So it still strikes me that the Kickstarter page and the video itself should not have been seen as infringing. That they might have been misleading is reason enough to change it, but it's unfortunate when people automatically assume that situations like this must be a copyright violation.

You may remember that, at the beginning of 2012, there were some predictions that Kickstarter might possibly help fund over $150 million that year, up from about $80 million in 2011. Turns out that estimate was way low. Kickstarter projects actually brought in $274 million on $319 million in pledges. A lot of folks are focused on that $319 million, but it seems like the $274 million is more interesting. You can see the breakdown of pledges as well, showing how it covers a variety of different areas: It seems notable that some of the areas with the most funding are the ones we're often told are struggling the most with new business models. Kickstarter is clearly not "the" new business model (because there isn't just one), but it shows that there are solutions out there, and likely will be many more on the way, even as Kickstarter itself continues to grow.

Less than a year after being declared the darling of Sundance -- especially for not having "the arrogance of a studio" -- Kickstarter has announced that over $100 million has been pledged to indie film via its platform (which, of course, is hardly the only crowdfunding platform that filmmakers use, though it is the most popular). There are some caveats, of course. This is over Kickstarter's lifetime (since April 2009), but the numbers have been growing rapidly. $60 million of those pledges came in 2012. Also, that's pledges, not actual money given, since only projects that hit their target get the money. The actual total collected is $85.7 million -- which means that'll get over $100 million pretty quickly.

And, yes, the "but what about my $100 million movie" crowd will scoff and argue that this number is so "small." But, two points there: first, this number is growing very, very, very fast. And if you can't understand how trends explode, then you're going to be in trouble soon. Second -- and this is the more important point -- those funds helped create 8,000 films. For those who have been arguing about culture and how we're going to lose the ability to make movies... this suggests something amazing and important is happening which goes against all those gloom and doom predictions. By way of comparison, the UN, which keeps track of stats on film production, claimed that in 2009, 7,233 films were made. Worldwide.

Also, some will inevitably suggest that these aren't "real" films and don't "count" or aren't important. But, of course, the data shows that it's creating a nice long tail of film production, and that includes some very "real" films no matter how you measure. According to the Kickstarter post:

• At least 86 Kickstarter-funded films have been released theatrically, screening in more than 1,500 North American theaters according to Rentrak. Another 14 films have theatrical premieres slated for 2013.
• According to Rotten Tomatoes, three of the 20 best-reviewed films of 2012 are Kickstarter-funded (The Waiting Room, Brooklyn Castle, and Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry). Another Kickstarter-funded film, Pariah, was among the best-reviewed of 2011.
• Two films have been nominated for Oscars in the past two years: Sun Come Up and Incident in New Baghdad. A third, Barber of Birmingham, launched a project after being Oscar-nominated. Three documentary features and two documentary shorts are currently shortlisted for Oscar nominations in 2013: The Waiting Room, Detropia, Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, Inocente, and Kings Point.
• Kickstarter-funded films comprised 10% of Sundance’s slate in 2012 and 2013. In total, 49 Kickstarter-funded films have been official selections at the prestigious festival.
• Kickstarter-funded films comprised 10% of the 2012 slates at the SXSW Film Festival and Tribeca Film Festival. In total, 57 Kickstarter-funded films have premiered at SXSW and 21 at Tribeca.
• At least 16 Kickstarter-funded films have been picked up for national broadcast through HBO, PBS, Showtime, and other networks.
• Kickstarter-funded films have won at least 21 awards at the Sundance, SXSW, Tribeca, Cannes, and Berlinale festivals.
• Eight Kickstarter-funded films are nominated for Independent Spirit Awards this year.

That seems like a pretty good track record that any movie studio would be proud of... And, to think: this trend is just beginning.

Well, this is amusing. San Francisco wireless ISP MonkeyBrains (who some friends use and love) has posted an IndieGogo crowdfunding project in which they're seeking $325,000,000 (yes, that's $325 million) to build a satellite to deliver internet access. The "tiers" are interesting. The lowest is $5,000 (two people have claimed those already!) but then quickly escalate to $10 million for the second tier. Of course, if you pay that, you get a gigabit internet connection for 5 years (only 5? guys, c'mon!). The full description of the project is worth reading:

Abstract

MonkeyBrains is a local ISP in San Francsico.  North Korea just launched a satellite; we want to as well.

The Cost Breakdown of Launching a Satellite

A quick internet search reveals that this is the cost for getting a satellite into orbit:

• Satellite manufacture: $150M
• Satellite launch: $120M
• Launch insurance: $20M
• In-orbit insurance: $20M
• Satellite operations (15 years): $15M

Faster Internet!

Our initial research seems to indicate having a satellite in orbit may not speed up your internet at all. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Geostationary_unsuitable_for_low-latency_applications].  However, if more research doesn't bode well for a geostationary satellite, we will take all of the $325M to fund either:

• Fiber to the home.
• A balloon tethered to the Farallon islands.
• a hovering drone over the Bay.

Trust Us

Some people just can't beleive we want to make the Internet Faster and Cheaper (and more Out of Control) than it already is.  Your money will be spent well, and San Francisco (and possibly -- if funds allow) the entire Bay Area will benefit.  We have set this fundraiser as Fixed Funding, so there is no risk of sending MonkeyBrains a little bit of money from your wallet without many other people feeling the same way.

Obviously, this is a joke by MonkeyBrains, but it's still interesting to see. It appears that they're trying to use this as a bit of a marketing effort -- not all that different from some of the products we've offered for sale in our store. The reason people like crowdfunding goes beyond just the money-raising part to the fact that it can also be an effective marketing platform. Here, it looks like MonkeyBrains is testing out the marketing aspect with little likelihood of actually using the fundraising part.

Oh, and don't miss the video, in which they explain their plan to use UFOs to deliver little pieces of internet from the satellite to your computer.

The human body harbors many more microbial cells than human cells. There are at least 10,000 different types of organisms on (and in) a healthy person, and finding out how our bodies interact with these microbes could help us understand how diseases are transmitted (or perhaps created). It's a huge task to study trillions of cells, so some microbiome projects are turning to crowdfunding and citizen scientists to help out. Here are just a few interesting links on the nascent field of mapping our microbial friends.

• The American Gut project is looking to raise $400,000 to create an open source collection of data on the diversity of microbes in our digestive systems. This project is also looking for donations of biological samples to analyze.... [url]
• uBiome is also collecting samples from volunteers to analyze and create a map of human microbe diversity. The data will be HIPAA compliant, and no personal information will be released -- and you're already spreading your personal flora around everywhere you go anyway. [url]
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has an on-going Human Microbiome Project that catalogs microbial communities that live on the human body. So far, this research has gathered data on the microbes living on 200+ healthy volunteers. [url]

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

Update: And... after a bunch of negative publicity, Apple has reversed course and lifted the ban. Original article below...

A bunch of folks have been submitting this story about Apple refusing to allow a company, Edison Junior, to offer its Lightning connector as part of its POP portable power station, which had run a very successful Kickstarter campaign earlier this year. Edison Junior is returning everyone's money -- even covering credit card fees and Kickstarter's fees (though it's asking Kickstarter to give that back as well), but is reasonably angry. According to VentureBeat:

“We are pissed,” Edison Junior CEO Jamie Siminoff told me on the phone today. “I think they are being a bunch of assholes, and I think they’re hurting their customers.”

Understandable. The company plans to still build versions of the device that focus on the Android market, and which might possibly work with Apple products if people use adapters, but it's certainly not ideal.

The whole thing, of course, is silly, but representative of the unfortunate world we live in today where companies lock up their products. In the past, building alternate versions or compatible accessories, and reverse engineering parts, was generally considered part of how an ecosystem was built up around your market. But Apple's infatuation with over-controlling its market only serves to piss off Apple customers who want a solution like this. Unfortunately, due to the nature of using security chips and claiming patents on everything, rather than just being a simple reverse engineering challenge, Apple is effectively able to use patent and copyright laws to block any such innovation.

A Kickstarter project by Ryan North, called To Be Or Not To Be: That Is The Adventure, has become the most funded publishing project on Kickstarter ever, as it recently surpassed $400,000 (he was originally seeking $20,000). While we always love to see interesting and successful crowdfunding projects, this one is interesting for a few additional reasons concerning topics we talk about here: copyright and trademarks. The actual book is, as North explains, "an illustrated, chooseable-path book version of William Shakespeare's Hamlet." So, how does that hit on copyright and trademark issues?

• Copyright: Even if the head of the Author's Guild doesn't seem to know this, Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, meaning that anyone can use them however they want -- whether it's to make an exact copy (and, yes, there are plenty of those on the market) or to do a derivative work. There have been tons of remakes and updates on Shakespeare's work, and many of them are super creative, such as this one. Kinda demonstrates just how ridiculous it is for copyright maximalists to argue that without strong copyright protection, creativity gets killed off. Just the opposite, it seems. The ability to build on the works of the past quite frequently inspires amazing new creativity.
• Trademark: North refers to this as a "choosable path adventure" because:

  "Chooseable-path" you may recognize as a trademark-skirting version of a phrase and book series you remember from childhood. Remember? Books in which... an adventure is chosen??

  Yes, they're not using the widely known phrase "choose your own adventure," because it's trademarked, and the owner of the mark has sued before. Of course, the story of the mark is interesting in its own right. Apparently, Bantam Books who helped popularize the original choose your own adventure books let the trademark lapse, and it was bought up by Ray Montgomery, who had run the small press that published the original books, but had not held the original trademark on it.

So we have examples of how a lack of a common "intellectual property" law enabled greater creativity, and how a current "intellectual property" law stupidly limits the option of using the most reasonable description of the work.

Either way, the book looks absolutely awesome, and if you want in on the Kickstarter offering, there are just a few hours left.

Earlier this year, a picture posted online by musician Lester Chambers of the Chambers Brothers -- a successful act from the 1960s -- went viral, telling the story of how the recording industry never paid him money he was owed. Now, with help from Reddit & Breadpig founder Alexis Ohanian, Chambers is raising money for a new album on Kickstarter, called Lester's Time Has Come Today. This is being done in association with Breadpig, which has helped a number of content creators sell their goods, while also doing social good as well.

The music industry may have screwed Lester Chambers for decades, but we the internet public can right their wrong.

Thanks to the open internet (things we fought for against SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc.), sites like Kickstarter and other innovations that are being worked on by entrepreneurs right now, we have the opportunity to do right by artists and cut out those who'd mistreat them. We have the opportunity to create solutions that will support artists in the digital world.

The money will actually go to Lester via Sweet Relief Musicians Fund, an organization that provides financial help to career musicians who are struggling financially, due to age, illness or disability.

In looking over this, I'm reminded that earlier this year, during a debate with Jonathan Taplin, Alexis similarly offered to help struggling career musicians launch Kickstarter campaigns, and was mocked for his offer. It raises questions, yet again, as to who is actually helping musicians out these days? The people whining about how copyright laws must be enforced... or the people actually setting up and creating new services to help musicians make money?