<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;entrepreneurs&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Take The Red Pill, Young People</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101230/15293612471/dailydirt-take-red-pill-young-people.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101230/15293612471/dailydirt-take-red-pill-young-people.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the wake of the Great Recession, many young adults are still having a hard time finding jobs. The recent unemployment rates for young adults (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm">age 20 to 24</a>) is about 13%, which is much higher than the rest of the adult population. Even worse, it seems like young workers (even college graduates) are increasingly taking low-wage jobs. Perhaps it's time for our youth to consider taking a chance and going into business for themselves. Here are a few links that might help convince them to take the plunge.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2013/03/18/ex-googlers-design-an-algorithm-for-investing-in-young-entrepreneurs/?single_page=true" href="http://bit.ly/ZuF4Ac">Upstart, founded by a team of ex-Googlers, is an all-in-one loan agency, investment fund, mentoring network, and dream factory for up-and-comers in their early 20s.</a> To find the most promising candidates, applicants are screened using sophisticated algorithms that can predict their likely future income based on GPA, educational background, past job offers, etc. Upstart helps them raise enough money to get their startups going, and in return, they pay their backers up to 7% of their future income each year for 10 years. [<a href="http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2013/03/18/ex-googlers-design-an-algorithm-for-investing-in-young-entrepreneurs/?single_page=true">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://blakemasters.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup" href="http://bit.ly/ZuHaAi">Check out these class notes from Peter Thiel's course on startups at Stanford, written in essay form.</a> In 2010, venture capitalist and entrepreneur Peter Thiel created the <a href="http://www.thielfellowship.org/">Thiel Fellowship</a>, which awards $100,000 to 20 students under 20 years old, with the goal of encouraging them to create their own startups instead of going to college. [<a href="http://blakemasters.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://blog.upstart.com/2012/08/day-one.html" href="http://bit.ly/XoYSCG">Read the Upstart blog for founder Dave Girouard's account of how he came up with the idea for Upstart.</a> The blog also has other personal accounts, information about Upstart, and interesting articles and perspectives on entrepreneurship. [<a href="http://blog.upstart.com/2012/08/day-one.html">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101230/15293612471/dailydirt-take-red-pill-young-people.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101230/15293612471/dailydirt-take-red-pill-young-people.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101230/15293612471/dailydirt-take-red-pill-young-people.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101230/15293612471</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:02:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Crowd Funding: Also A Method For Proving Marketability To Investors</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/09261722038/crowd-funding-also-method-proving-marketability-to-investors.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/09261722038/crowd-funding-also-method-proving-marketability-to-investors.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As crowdfunding sites like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=kickstarter">Kickstarter</a> continue to be a rising trend in content production, there&#39;s an important lesson that both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130109/18230721623/274-million-raised-via-kickstarter-2012.shtml">successful</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130214/03052121969/its-fine-rich-famous-to-use-kickstarter-bjorks-project-failed-because-it-was-lame.shtml">failed</a> attempts can teach us all. That lesson is that the turnout for such a project tells the producer everything they need to know about the combination of the saleability of their project and their ability to properly market it. In fact, Mark Cuban recently <a href="http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/mark-cuban-says-crowdfunding-should-be-required-for-all-startups/22991/7">came out in strong support of crowd funding</a>, going so far as to suggest that every startup should be required to do a Kickstarter campaign.
<blockquote>
<i>"It&#39;s a way for you create demand and sell the product without giving up any equity. That is a compliment to what an investor might do. In terms of PE (price to equity), there are strategic investors and then there&#39;s just money. I&#39;m not a big fan of money investors, which is what most angel investors turn out to be, because they just want their money back. I try to be very strategic, I try to add value, or I don&#39;t make the investment."</i>
</blockquote>
It&#39;s a great way to look at things, but I wonder if we can take it a step further. There is no reason that a Kickstarter project cannot also woo more traditional investors. This is all the moreso if the Kickstarter campaign takes off like a rocket. Why&nbsp;<i>wouldn&#39;t</i> an investor want to back a project that has shown it is both in-demand and managed by competent business folks? Serving as one example of the ability to do this, not to mention the <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/20/chris-roberts-on-life-after-crowdfunding-games-vs-film/#more-142722">leverage such an approach provides content creators</a>, is Chris Roberts, developer of the Star Citizen game, which was <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen?ref=live">wildly popular</a> on Kickstarter.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;We&rsquo;re still doing investment,&rdquo; Roberts explained to RPS, &ldquo;but I&rsquo;m going to be a bit more picky in choosing it, and I&rsquo;m getting to dictate the terms better. I&rsquo;m saying, &lsquo;You guys have to realize about making the game as good as possible. No forcing us to go public or to sell out.&rsquo;&rdquo;</i>
</blockquote>
Far from well-known conditions of corporate or investor interests forcing an early release of a game, or nixing important but difficult to create aspects of one (ahem, Mass Effect 3), this diversification of backing dollars protects the creator and his or her vision for their creation. There are still going to be stipulations under which an investor may hand over their cash, but the control over the creator is mitigated by the other sources of funds. 
<br /><br />
Beyond that, Chris explains how crowd funding can be a great proving ground to current or new investors.
<blockquote>
<i>"It&rsquo;s actually funny. Everyone I lined up is basically over the moon. Your big risk as an investor is, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m backing this thing. Does anyone really want it?&rdquo; At this point there&rsquo;s no question that people want it, and maybe a lot more than anyone was expecting."</i>
</blockquote>
What does this mean in practical terms? Well, far from the the caution some issue that crowd-funded projects will naturally be lower-budget cousins to their corporate largers, being able to attract money from multiple sources, including a wider internet public, could make for&nbsp;<i>huge</i> budgets in games, films, and music. I would suggest creators heed Mark Cuban&#39;s words: crowdfund, both for the money you can generate for your product, but also to prove to traditional investors that you&#39;re going to be successful.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/09261722038/crowd-funding-also-method-proving-marketability-to-investors.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/09261722038/crowd-funding-also-method-proving-marketability-to-investors.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/09261722038/crowd-funding-also-method-proving-marketability-to-investors.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>in-the-pudding</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130220/09261722038</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:02:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You're An Entrepreneur Who's Sick Of DC Not Paying Attention To You, Here's Your Chance</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/23252221864/if-youre-entrepreneur-whos-sick-dc-not-paying-attention-to-you-heres-your-chance.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/23252221864/if-youre-entrepreneur-whos-sick-dc-not-paying-attention-to-you-heres-your-chance.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ My friends over at Engine Advocacy (disclaimer: I'm on the steering committee and advise them on certain issues, but have nothing to do with this event) are planning their second <a href="http://engine.is/startupday" target="_blank">Startup Day on the Hill</a> -- where they bring a bunch of entrepreneurs to Washington DC, and actually get them talking to lawmakers.  This is a big deal and a useful opportunity.  As we all know, DC has a long history of ignoring startups, but the goal of Engine is to change that, and this is one of many cool and useful programs that they're doing.  Among other things, there will be a Demo Day for policy makers, roundtable discussions with some of the top tech policy people in the White House, including CTO Todd Park and Senior Policy Advisor Doug Rand (both are very interesting guys).  And, of course, a bunch of meetings with elected officials in Congress and their staffs.  These kinds of things are great for getting folks in DC to realize that startups and innovation are real things.  Too often, it seems that they only look to big legacy companies for tech policy, and that can distort the picture.  One way to fix that is to get them introduced to more startups and entrepreneurs.  So, please, please, check this out and see if you can go.  It's happening February 26th and 27th with all the details <a href="http://engine.is/startupday" target="_blank">on the site</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/23252221864/if-youre-entrepreneur-whos-sick-dc-not-paying-attention-to-you-heres-your-chance.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/23252221864/if-youre-entrepreneur-whos-sick-dc-not-paying-attention-to-you-heres-your-chance.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130201/23252221864/if-youre-entrepreneur-whos-sick-dc-not-paying-attention-to-you-heres-your-chance.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>startup-day-on-the-hill</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130201/23252221864</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:02:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Bringing Artists &#038; Entrepreneurs Together To Help Each Other</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/03210820728/bringing-artists-entrepreneurs-together-to-help-each-other.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/03210820728/bringing-artists-entrepreneurs-together-to-help-each-other.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11570520642/bringing-music-tech-together-to-move-things-forward-productively.shtml">mentioned</a>, a week ago on Wednesday, October 10th, we spent the entire day in an "Artists &#038; Entrepreneurs Working Group" brainstorming session.  For me, personally, it was a truly fantastic experience: a chance to get together a bunch of people who don't normally talk -- and then to actually <i>work together</i> in an open fashion to <i>listen</i> to each other, to <i>understand</i> each other and to look together for <i>actual solutions</i> to challenges we all face.  The day was basically a blank slate, with a very loose agenda: in the morning, we'd discuss challenges, in the afternoon brainstorm thoughts about how to deal with those challenges, and then conclude by seeing if there were any specific things that we could start doing now.
<br /><br />
The whole thing was very much an experiment.  Unlike conferences that segment themselves down to one-hour increments of panels and interviews, here was a chance to spend a day together, without specific agendas, focused on really talking and brainstorming with the goal of doing something productive and helpful.  In many ways, the experience was exhilarating. It's something you don't often get to experience: lots of really smart people, with very different experiences and perspectives, not giving prepared speeches or covering the same old ground but actually discussing things openly, making connections, brainstorming new ideas and actively thinking about big problems.
<br /><br />
Part of the idea behind this event was that for too long the discussion has basically been the same: get a few people who disagree about something to sit opposite each other on TV, on a panel, on the web, or anywhere else, and argue with each other for a short period of time. In such events people too often come with lots of prepared points and then talk past each other, with nothing productive coming out of it. Panels and debates can be good, and they have their place -- but we thought that entrepreneurs and artists are a lot more similar than they are different.  We're all running out own businesses in many ways.  And we're all creating something new and wonderful.  It seems like there's tremendous common ground in our shared situations.
<br /><br />
And yet, at the same time, there are some very real differences.  So we thought, if we looked at that as an opportunity and sought to <i>better understand those differences</i>, with a focus on looking for ways to help each other, could we create something that wasn't "the same old debate?"  Could we, instead, focus on doing something productive?
<br /><br />
That was an ambitious goal -- but it's one I think we accomplished.  The event itself exceeded my own expectations (by a wide margin).  Bringing together a large group of really smart people (many of whom have very strong opinions) for an entire day, without an agenda, and saying "hey, everyone, talk!" seemed like it had the potential to be a complete disaster -- but it was the exact opposite.  It resulted in a beautiful, inspiring, thought-provoking discussion that is going to continue, and will hopefully lead to many more wonderful things.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/lug2B"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/lug2B.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
The group was impressive.  We shamelessly piggybacked on <a href="http://www.sfmusictech.com/" target="_blank">SF Music Tech</a> (with encouragement from SFMT's master of everything, Brian Zisk, who also allowed us to host a sort of "preview" panel at SFMT).  However, we went beyond just music, and the variety of perspectives was refreshing.  There were musicians there, but also authors, filmmakers and even a painter and a designer/roboticist, among others.  There were those who worked closely with artists, including indie labels and artists' representatives.  And, of course, there were entrepreneurs from a variety of companies, including Humble Bundle, Bandcamp, IndieGoGo, Smashwords, CASH music, TopSpin, Pandora, Songkick, Bandzoogle, Bookmooch and a few others.
<br /><br />
In the morning <b>we discussed challenges</b> that people faced.  That was the extent of the official agenda -- and after briefly introducing the event and highlighting some responses from the survey I'd asked people to fill out earlier, the group was off and running, bringing up a variety of different issues and challenges and discussing their own experiences openly.
<br /><br />
It will be interesting to see some of the other attendees share their thoughts about the event, but the key challenges that I heard as the discussion went on were:
<ul>
<li><b>Resources</b>: It's tough to do what you want to do if you don't have the resources to do it.  This is kind of a universal one, and not at all surprising.  Obviously, this applies to both artists and entrepreneurs, but in different ways and to different degrees. A lack of resources can be not just a challenge, but something immensely stressful as well.
</li><li><b>A missing roadmap</b>: It was interesting just how often this one came up.  One of the biggest challenges everyone admitted to facing was the fact that there is no roadmap for what you should do these days, and no single definition of success.  The path (especially on the artist side, but also to a degree on the entrepreneur side) is a lot less clear than it may have been in the past -- and that uncertainty can make life difficult.  It's one thing to follow steps A, B and C and face different challenges at each.  But it's something else entirely if you have no idea where to go next.  And part of the discussion was that the roadmap is very different for everyone.  There are successful "working class" musicians who make a living day in, day out, and there are big "rock stars."  They define success differently.  Similarly, there are entrepreneurs who want to build a good, profitable business (sometimes called "a lifestyle business") and there are those who look to be the equivalent of rockstars: raising tons of money, becoming the next big IPO, etc. Plus there are all sorts of personalized dreams that will be a bit different for every person. How you get from here to there changes depending on how you define success, and that makes it all the harder for people to plot out their "roadmap" by finding good advice and sharing strategies with each other.
</li><li><b>Education</b>: Perhaps connected to the roadmap issue, this one was about learning what's out there, and what the possibilities are.  The challenge here was somewhat different for entrepreneurs and artists, it seemed.  Entrepreneurs wanted to figure out how to better educate people about what they themselves were doing, while artists wanted to better educate themselves (and others) about career strategies and the entrepreneurial side of being and artist.  For entrepreneurs, some looked upon education as going hand in hand with marketing (which could potentially turn off some artists).  For artists, there was a clear desire to better connect <i>with other artists</i>, and some concern that artists don't talk enough about these things among themselves.
</li><li><b>Discovery</b>: This is obviously a big challenge on both sides.  For entrepreneurs it's about finding new customers and users and for artists it's about finding new fans.  Everyone was interested in ways to do more of this, but admitted that it's a very big challenge in a wide open digital world.  Too often people think that if you do something great, the people just show up.  That happens, but it's rare.  You can be a great musician, but people still have to find out about you.  You can build a great tool or service, but if no one uses it, what good is it?  Having people learn about you <i>and</i> like you is a challenge that many people seem to underestimate.
</li><li><b>Policy</b>: There were some concerns about where government policy might get in the way of certain things -- whether it's preventing artists from doing what they want, or making life challenging for entrepreneurs.  We had some discussions about areas where artists and entrepreneurs could agree on policy issues.  Also, there were significant concerns about who has the most influence on policy, and whose interests they really represented.
</li></ul>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/n3zCT"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/n3zCT.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Highlighting challenges is one thing, but solving them is another. People seemed quite enthusiastic about taking these challenges and seeing what could be done to ease them, or turn them into greater opportunities, so the afternoon was spent mostly brainstorming -- sometimes tossing out crazy ideas, sometimes digging in on specific details, and openly discussing a variety of possible things that could be done.
<br /><br />
In fact, part of what was so encouraging was that the constant theme, throughout the entire event -- from basically everyone, no matter where they came from -- was "what can we do to help."  Obviously, not everyone agreed with everything that was suggested -- but in the spirit of brainstorming, people seemed to consistently build on what others were saying, seeking the key insight that we could build on and focusing the conversation on those opportunities.
<br /><br />
From my perspective, I learned a lot about where some of the misunderstandings between entrepreneurs and artists come from, where there are often misinterpreted expectations and objectives.  As a group we mentally chewed on a variety of ideas, often recognizing that there were no "easy" solutions, but that there had to be something better.  Could there be better material to educate each other?  Would a unified source for information do that?  There was a recognition that different artists have very different experiences.
<br /><br />
We had discussions about how people defined success, and how priorities shifted over time.  We discussed ways to get more people talking about these things.  We discussed concerns about what others might do with things that we brought into the world -- whether it was content or tools and services.
<br /><br />
Over time, we began to hit on a few key points, and areas where there were possibilities to actually make a difference.  There was a fair bit of interest in the possibility of building a large copyright database, along the lines of what <a href="http://www.fistfulayen.com/blog/2012/01/a-proposal-for-legislation-to-proactively-combat-piracy-while-encouraging-an-open-and-innovative-internet/" target="_blank">Ian Rogers has suggested in the past</a>, that covers licensing terms for any work, as well as just general ownership info (since sometimes it's not at all clear who owns the rights to certain works for the purpose of licensing them).  Some also suggested that such a database could include additional useful metadata as well (prior to the session, one musician pointed out how nice it would be to have a database that would make it easier to find out who did audio engineering on tracks you liked, to make it easier to seek them out for your own recordings).  
<br /><br />
There was some discussion over whether or not this was something the Copyright Office <i>should do</i>, along with some concerns that there was no way that it <i>could do</i> it without massive, massive changes.  And, not to be left out, there were some discussions about US vs. international policy, since although we were mostly a US-based group, we did have at least one foreign-based artist in attendance, who had some different issues to deal with.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/Bo3yN"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Bo3yN.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Out of all of this, we put together a list of things that we thought we could actually do something about:
<ul>
<li><b>Continue this conversation</b>: There seemed to be agreement across the board that (1) the all day discussion had tremendous value in a lot of ways, both in generating ideas and getting people to think through possibilities, but that (2) a one day event, no matter how focused on being practical and productive, wasn't really enough time to come to any grand conclusions.  But everyone agreed that we, as a group (with some additional folks) should be continuing the conversation in some way, whether it's online or through more in-person brainstorming sessions.  That task was put on me, and I'm working on it.
</li><li><b>There's an opportunity to create &#038; curate useful info</b>: There's a lot of info out there, with no shortage of advice being offered to artists and entrepreneurs, which is potentially overwhelming and can make it difficult to zero in on what's actually useful. They suggested that the education component could be helped by having better curation of such content. Others suggested that perhaps specific events could serve this purpose, with the example of "filmmaker labs" being tossed out. One concern raised: none of this content will get consumed if it's not presented in a fun and interesting way that attracts people.  If it's just piling together a bunch of content into a haystack, that won't help people as much. Figuring out how this could be done and who should be involved is an ongoing discussion, with one concern being how to ensure that such a source doesn't become myopic and start pushing one set of ideas when the landscape is truly open and still evolving. 
</li><li><b>Getting data</b>: This came up both for the purpose of better education through aggregate data, and also to drive towards a possible rights database.  There was a suggestion that, if Apple could be convinced to share its data, that could be a starting point -- though that would cover mostly music (but some TV and movie stuff as well).  There were mixed opinions on whether or not Apple could ever be convinced to open up this data.
</li><li><b>Standardization</b>: An interesting point that was raised was that part of the reason for a cloudy roadmap and an abundance of choice for artists (that makes things difficult) may be the near-complete lack of standardization.  That is, there are a number of startups that often seem to be reinventing the wheel or working on similar types of tools, and that there might be much more value created (for <i>everyone</i>) if there was some standardization at the platform level. Say, for example, a common format for storing and communicating all of the info about an artist and their catalogue between various sites and services. Then different service providers could seek to build tools and services <i>above that</i>, and let the competition occur at that level.  This would provide a somewhat more defined setup and less confusion over what services can help in what ways.  It might also lead to better integration between different services, allowing artists to do a lot more.  This was left as an issue for some of the entrepreneurs to continue discussions over, to see if there was a way to make it happen.
</li><li><b>Policy Issues</b>: Going back to the copyright / metadata database discussion, there were some thoughts on whether or not there were ways to get the policy world to recognize how useful and valuable such a database would be for almost everyone.  There was some concern about the few players it might disrupt (publishers, for one) who value keeping some of that data proprietary, but a general sense that the overall benefit of such a database for artists and entrepreneurs would be tremendous.
</li></ul>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/oFYzM"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/oFYzM.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Seeing as the conversation went from 9am to 5pm, there was obviously a <i>lot</i> of other things discussed -- but these were my own key takeaways.  I'm sure that some of the others there had their own takeaways as well.  For me, the day was really quite energizing.  Getting a lot of really smart people together to discuss interesting ideas, opportunities and challenges -- and doing so in a productive manner -- was really a tremendous amount of fun.  I'm already working to keep the conversation moving and see where we go next.  In total, about 45 people showed up during the day -- with a core group of about 25 making it from start to finish (the absolute troopers) and another 20 stopping in for parts or having to take off early.
<br /><br />
This obviously is not the end of the discussion by any means, and one thing that is part of the plan is to continue to get more people involved to get more insights.  On the whole, though, considering that this was completely a first-time experiment -- in which we had no clear format and no real agenda, and we mostly just let the conversation go wherever it went -- I think it was quite successful.  We haven't changed the world, but perhaps we can start making good things happen.
<br /><br />
Special thanks go out to everyone who attended, whether for the whole day or just a part.  Extra special thanks to the smaller group of folks who helped me think through the event in the months and weeks leading up to it, letting me toss out ideas and giving me feedback on how the effort might be more productive and fun.  Also, thanks to Hattery for providing us with the unique space (with slightly odd acoustics), and to Google for sponsoring, so that we could provide everyone with bagels and coffee in the morning, and sandwiches and chips at lunch. 
<br /><br />
On the whole, the event has me really excited about possibilities for the future -- including more gatherings like this one.  We'll be continuing the discussion between artists and entrepreneurs, and are hoping to hold more events going forward, while also seeing if we can really take some of the ideas and suggestions and help make them a reality.  One legitimate concern raised towards the end was that there were a lot of good ideas, but ideas without execution are meaningless, and execution without leadership is rare.  I think a big next challenge will be finding people who will step up and take ownership of some of the suggestions to see if they can, with wider support, turn them into something real.  That, of course, is the biggest challenge of them all -- but, given the excitement about the possibilities, it seems like a challenge worth tackling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/03210820728/bringing-artists-entrepreneurs-together-to-help-each-other.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/03210820728/bringing-artists-entrepreneurs-together-to-help-each-other.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/03210820728/bringing-artists-entrepreneurs-together-to-help-each-other.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>solving-problems</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121017/03210820728</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:51:09 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The French Pigeons Are Revolting -- And That's Good</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/10042220664/french-pigeons-are-revolting-thats-good.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/10042220664/french-pigeons-are-revolting-thats-good.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the reasons the copyright lobby has been able to get so far with Net-hostile legislation like SOPA/PIPA and treaties like ACTA and TPP is that the companies affected adversely -- both big Internet players and smaller startups -- have failed to make their voice heard effectively.  That's finally starting to change, as Google ramps up its lobbying efforts, and Net entrepreneurs start to get organised.
</p><p>
But in Europe, things still have a long way to go in terms of providing a digital perspective on legislation and treaties that can counterbalance the powerful lobbying machine of the old media industry there.  That's what makes the following story about <a href="http://gigaom.com/europe/pigeon-power-french-startups-force-government-into-retreat-over-equity-tax/">a revolt by French startups against a proposed tax rise</a>, reported here by David Meyer on GigaOM, rather remarkable:

<i><blockquote>Arguing that there would be little point in being an entrepreneur in France anymore -- particularly with the UK offering a much better deal just across the Channel -- the startups organized themselves into a largely online movement called 'Les Pigeons', or 'the suckers'.
<br /><br />
They were set for a street protest this weekend, but yesterday they met with finance minister Pierre Moscovici&#8230;and won.</blockquote></i>

Now, admittedly this was a fight over money, rather than policy or anything more noble, but the point remains that for the first time, French entrepreneurs came together to make the government change its mind, and succeeded.  If nothing else, that creates a precedent for them to do the same in the future when they might wish to persuade ministers not to bring in particularly harmful legislation, or support damaging treaties.  As Meyer comments:

<i><blockquote>It's quite refreshing to see European startups flexing their political muscle. Now if those in Germany can just do the same in their own fights against counterproductive freelancer taxes and crazy ancillary copyright proposals, we can call this a trend.</blockquote></i>

Here's hoping.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/10042220664/french-pigeons-are-revolting-thats-good.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/10042220664/french-pigeons-are-revolting-thats-good.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/10042220664/french-pigeons-are-revolting-thats-good.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>more,-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121009/10042220664</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Bringing Music &#038; Tech Together To Move Things Forward Productively</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11570520642/bringing-music-tech-together-to-move-things-forward-productively.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11570520642/bringing-music-tech-together-to-move-things-forward-productively.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Tomorrow is the latest version of the absolutely awesome <a href="http://www.sfmusictech.com/" target="_blank">SF MusicTech Summit</a>, which happens twice a year, and which I rarely miss.  It's always a great place to meet lots of people involved in both music and technology and to have some really great conversations.  If you've never been, it's absolutely worth checking out.  I asked organizer Brian Zisk about the themes for the event, and he noted that it's really about "working together to move things forward productively."  This is great to hear, because that's what's really needed at this point.  We've gone through about a decade and a half of finger pointing, but have not nearly had enough effort put into actually focusing on helping each other.
<br /><br />
Along those lines, I'll be doing a panel at 9:25am tomorrow morning, with one of my favorite musicians, <a href="http://www.zoekeating.com/" target="_blank">Zoe Keating</a> and Mike McGeary from <a href="http://engine.is/" target="_blank">Engine</a>, to talk about how artists and entrepreneurs can, are and should be working together to help each other.  This session will actually be a brief "preview" into a bigger effort that we're working on.  The following day, Wednesday, we're hosting a whole bunch of artists (not just music, but film, books, graphic artists and more) and entrepreneurs, for a daylong productive "working group," to try to help everyone understand each other -- the challenges we all face and the opportunities we all see -- and to figure out if there are <b>specific, actionable things that we can all <i>do</i> to help each other</b>.  We haven't set up this working group as a "conference."  There are no talking heads.  There won't be any panels.  There's a very loose agenda.  But the focus is on having an open discussion and finding common ground -- recognizing that entrepreneurs and artists are often more alike than different.  In many ways, we're all running our own businesses -- and creating something new and wonderful.
<br /><br />
At the same time, obviously, there are some very real differences between being an artist and an entrepreneur -- and one issue that both sides often run into is a failure to fully understand those differences.  So part of the goal of the one day event will be to foster better understanding of those issues, but with a focus on figuring out how we can actually get something done to help each other, rather than just talking about it all.  We'll give a glimpse into that discussion tomorrow, and then will spend most of Wednesday working through these issues with a wide range of artists and entrepreneurs.  We'll then be taking what we learn from the working group and creating a paper out of it, that we'll (of course) release to the world.  It should be an exciting week!
<br /><br />
Oh... and don't forget, if you're in town, come by our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121003/12352820583/come-celebrate-15-years-techdirt-50000-posts.shtml">Happy Hour</a> on Wednesday evening!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11570520642/bringing-music-tech-together-to-move-things-forward-productively.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11570520642/bringing-music-tech-together-to-move-things-forward-productively.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/11570520642/bringing-music-tech-together-to-move-things-forward-productively.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121008/11570520642</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:54:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Made In America: Foreign Entrepreneurs Who Will Compete Against Us</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120828/12414820182/made-america-foreign-entrepreneurs-who-will-compete-against-us.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120828/12414820182/made-america-foreign-entrepreneurs-who-will-compete-against-us.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While I enjoy reading <i>The New Yorker</i> when I get the chance, it's rare they cover an issue that I'm deeply familiar with.  So it's great to see James Surowiecki jump into the pool with an article about the <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/08/27/120827ta_talk_surowiecki?currentPage=all&#038;utm_source=buffer&#038;buffer_share=64735" target="_blank">problems with the US's view towards skilled immigration</a>.  It's an issue we've been covering <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=skilled+immigrants&#038;eid=&#038;tid=&#038;aid=&#038;searchin=stories">for years</a>, and I still can't figure out why people are against opening our shores to skilled immigrants.  It often seems like the arguments against it are a mix of just under the surface racism with a healthy dose of ignorance about economics.  Skilled immigrants help <i>expand the pie</i>, creating new companies and new jobs, rather than taking away from the market, as some falsely assume.
<br /><br />
 The Surowiecki piece is a good one in debunking many of those arguments and highlighting why we really need reform to let in skilled immigrants -- because as we keep turning them away, plenty of other countries have been welcoming them with open arms, meaning that they'll be building businesses that <i>compete</i> with domestic companies, rather than building companies in the US.  And, even worse, a large number of those that we're turning away are people who were schooled here.  So we're building our own competitors -- who want to stay here and help our economy -- and then sending them elsewhere to compete with us.  How does that make any sense at all?
<blockquote><i>
Of course, with unemployment here above eight per cent, too little immigration may not seem like a bad thing: surely we need more jobs, not more workers? But this is a shortsighted view. Economies are not static, with a limited set of resources to go around. As the work of the economist Paul Romer has shown, economies grow faster when there is more innovation, and having more smart people in the workforce is a key driver of innovation. And the quickest, cheapest way to get more smart people is to make it easy for them to move here. What&#8217;s more, historically there has been a clear connection between immigration in the U.S. and entrepreneurship, with immigrants creating companies (and jobs) at a disproportionate rate. In one famous study, the social scientist AnnaLee Saxenian showed that Chinese and Indian immigrants alone founded a quarter of Silicon Valley start-ups between 1980 and 1998, while a 2007 study found that a quarter of all technology and engineering start-ups between 1995 and 2005 were founded by immigrants. On a larger scale, more than forty per cent of the companies in the 2010 Fortune 500 were started by immigrants or their children.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, the piece also explains why various <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h6210/show" target="_blank">bills</a> to fix this (even with bipartisan support) don't seem to be moving: "there is no urgency in Washington on the issue, and voter anxiety about the weak economy and the scarcity of jobs gives politicians an excuse for inaction."  Basically, some fear mongering among those who don't like "foreigners" during an election season is holding back good and useful policy, much to our own detriment.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120828/12414820182/made-america-foreign-entrepreneurs-who-will-compete-against-us.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120828/12414820182/made-america-foreign-entrepreneurs-who-will-compete-against-us.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120828/12414820182/made-america-foreign-entrepreneurs-who-will-compete-against-us.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-to-see</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/12414820182</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:55:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Entrepreneurs &amp; VCs Tell The White House To Focus On Innovation, Rather Than IP Enforcement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As promised, below is <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1XSyAFeWTYUHsISHX9RQjqZ7_f-7h0GtfgS652WMFLm0" target="_blank">what I filed today</a> with the White House in their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/14275019470/white-house-wants-to-hear-you-concerning-its-strategy-intellectual-property-enforcement.shtml">request for comment</a> on the upcoming "Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement."  After talking it over with a number of top entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, we decided to file the comment jointly, as a group.  Among those  signing on to this statement are Evan Williams (Founder of Twitter), Dennis Crowley (Co-founder and CEO of Foursquare) Erik Martin (General Manager of Reddit), Alexis Ohanian (Founder of Reddit & Breadpig), Ian Rogers (CEO of TopSpin), David Ulevitch (Founder & CEO of OpenDNS), Ben Huh (CEO of Cheezburger), Drew Curtis (CEO of Fark) and many others.
<br /><br />
The key to our filing is to point out that if the White House really wants to deal with infringement, the absolute best way to do so is to encourage and enable greater innovation.  Innovation to provide new ways to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize content has time and time again been shown to be the <i>only</i> consistently successful path to reducing infringement.  Legal enforcement has <i>never</i> been shown to be a successful long-term strategy.  And that's because infringement is, almost always, a situation where the business models and the services have not yet caught up to what the technology allows, and what the public would like to be able to do.  Encouraging new tools and services to close this gap takes away the incentives for infringement.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, most of the focus to date, instead, has been on increasing the power of law enforcement, which actually is <i>counterproductive</i> in that it tends to have massive collateral damage in terms of both potential attacks on free speech, but more importantly by creating chilling effects on the very innovation that is needed to respond to widespread infringement.  Similarly, we are equally worried about the nature of attempts at regulatory change (SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, TPP) developed in backrooms with little to no input from the innovation community, which will again lead to stifling of innovation.
<br /><br />
If you have not yet filed your own comments with the White House, <b><i>please do so today</i></b> before they close comments (either 5pm ET or midnight ET depending on which page you believe -- so I'd assume 5pm to be safe).  You just need to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=OMB-2012-0004-0002" target="_blank">go to this form</a>, where you can file a short (2,000 character) comment directly, or you can upload a longer filing if you have more to say.  If you want another example beyond what we filed, also check out this <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OMB-2012-0004-0153" target="_blank">detailed filing</a> from CDT.  Once all the filings are in, we'll look at highlighting a few of the more interesting ones if we get the chance next week.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-much-more-useful-plan</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120810/02111919983</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>New Evidence Shows That Patents Matter Less And Less For Startups</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120625/02185519460/new-evidence-shows-that-patents-matter-less-less-startups.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120625/02185519460/new-evidence-shows-that-patents-matter-less-less-startups.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I was recently at a "tech" conference that focused on entrepreneurs, and I watched a panel discussion on "legal issues" where the first speaker went on at length about why startups absolutely <i>needed</i> to apply for patents as soon as possible.  He argued that so much of a company's value was "tied up" in its "intellectual property" and you absolutely needed to "protect" it or the company could just be copied.  This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of true value.  The idea, by itself, is somewhat meaningless.  The real issue is the execution -- and no matter what you know about the idea, the actual execution is always a lot more difficult.  Focusing on "protecting" rather than executing can actually be the death of a startup.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, it looks like more and more startups in the "soft technology" realm are recognizing this, and are getting fewer and fewer patents.  TechCrunch has a post by patent lawyer Leonid Kravets who did a study of patents and funded companies, and found that each year over the past few years, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/21/do-patents-really-matter-to-startups-new-data-reveals-shifting-habits/" target="_blank">startups seem to be getting fewer patents</a>.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/7cZrm"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/7cZrm.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
It may be tough to tell from the chart, but basically, each year shows fewer patent applications from startups.  There's a ton of other interesting data at the link above, including some differences between certain investors.  Not surprisingly, corporate VC wings seem to like companies with patents (a very big company mentality).  Whereas VCs that have been investing in some of the most successful startups today (like Accel, which funded Facebook, and Union Square, which funded Twitter, Kickstarter, FourSquare, Tumblr and many others) have a much lower number of startups they invest in that have patents.  Those VCs seem to recognize that it's not the patents that matter, and the general success of both of those firms' portfolios suggests they may be on to something.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120625/02185519460/new-evidence-shows-that-patents-matter-less-less-startups.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120625/02185519460/new-evidence-shows-that-patents-matter-less-less-startups.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20120625/02185519460/new-evidence-shows-that-patents-matter-less-less-startups.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>indeed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120625/02185519460</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:50:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Small Entertainment Web Site Fears SOPA Will Cause It To Shut Down... But ICE Can Already Shut It Down</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09425617105/small-entertainment-web-site-fears-sopa-will-cause-it-to-shut-down-ice-can-already-shut-it-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09425617105/small-entertainment-web-site-fears-sopa-will-cause-it-to-shut-down-ice-can-already-shut-it-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Paul Tassi has an article up at Forbes, where he explains how the blog he runs for a living, <a href="http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/category/reviews/" target="_blank">Unreality</a>, which covers movies/tv/video games, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/12/16/how-sopa-could-ruin-my-life/" target="_blank">would be at risk of being shut down under SOPA</a>.  Even though his site has nothing to do with infringement, he's still quite reasonably worried:
<blockquote><i>
My site likes to find the best media-related content on the internet. We post photos, artwork and embed YouTube videos that involve things about our favorite movies, shows and games. I always give credit where it&rsquo;s due, but on occasion, a photographer or artist cannot be located. Under SOPA, should they find their content on my site, they would legally have the right to petition my advertisers to stop paying me, or report me to the government. The same goes for YouTube videos I might feature. Though the content is not mine, as I haven&rsquo;t uploaded it to the web myself, I am indeed linking to it, and with this new law, I would be subject to the same sort of harsh penalties should the content within be something copyrighted like footage from a game or movie. I am willingly linking to &ldquo;infringing&rdquo; content, and under SOPA, can be branded a &ldquo;rogue site&rdquo; because of that. Such a classification could cause me to lose everything.
</i></blockquote>
It's not clear if Tassi is in the US.  If he is, then he's actually (partially) exaggerating, because as of Monday, SOPA no longer applies to US sites.  But that's not good news.  Because if he's a US site, then he's <i>already subject to bogus seizures</i> by the government, by which his web site could <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml">totally disappear for over a year</a> with no due process whatsoever.  Actually, no matter where he is physically, his site -- as a dot com -- is already subject to that kind of censorship.  Even without SOPA.  All someone has to do is convince a somewhat clueless Immigrations &#038; Customs Enforcement official that his site has lots of infringing content on it -- even if it does not.
<blockquote><i>
I don&rsquo;t understand the entertainment companies&rsquo; end game here. They&rsquo;ve gone beyond obtuse to straight up maniacal. Do they think if they manage to shut down every bit of copyright infringement on the internet, that sales are going to suddenly skyrocket? Do they think people have some secret horde of cash that they&rsquo;ve just been waiting to blow on DVDs and CDs, but haven&rsquo;t because of The Pirate Bay&rsquo;s existence? If my site can&rsquo;t link to gameplay videos or movie clips, are my readers going to run out and buy them to see what they&rsquo;re missing? If they land Unreality on a rogue evil pirate site list, who benefits? I&rsquo;m suddenly homeless, without any cash to go the movies.
</i></blockquote>
It's a good question.  The "end game" is all about control.  The legacy entertainment industry built their business models entirely on the basis of the idea that they, not consumers, controlled the market.  Everything they're doing is seeking to regain that lost control.  As Tassi notes, none of that will actually make people buy more.  But that's never what this was about.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09425617105/small-entertainment-web-site-fears-sopa-will-cause-it-to-shut-down-ice-can-already-shut-it-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09425617105/small-entertainment-web-site-fears-sopa-will-cause-it-to-shut-down-ice-can-already-shut-it-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/09425617105/small-entertainment-web-site-fears-sopa-will-cause-it-to-shut-down-ice-can-already-shut-it-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hearing-from-the-entrepreneurs</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111216/09425617105</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Dec 2011 14:36:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Engine Of Innovation Realizing It Can't Ignore DC Any More</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/14034217000/engine-innovation-realizing-it-cant-ignore-dc-any-more.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/14034217000/engine-innovation-realizing-it-cant-ignore-dc-any-more.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Today marks the launch of an exciting new effort among the startup ecosystem: <a href="http://engineadvocacy.com/" target="_blank">Engine Advocacy</a>.  If you're an entrepreneur, investor, innovator, creator or involved in the overall startup ecosystem, please check out the website and consider joining.
<br /><br />
As you may recall, a few months ago a few of us involved in the startup world started talking about how ridiculous it was that folks in Washington DC keep pushing ridiculously bad legislation that impacts innovation and competition in a really negative way -- without recognizing the damage this causes.  The end result was that, in almost every instance, legislation that was going to impact the true engine of innovation and economic growth in this country was being crafted and implemented without hearing from those actually doing the innovation and creating the economic growth.  This was most immediately seen in the mess created by PROTECT IP and SOPA, but involves a variety of other topics as well: immigration, broadband, privacy, patents and many other issues all impact how the startup ecosystem (including not just entrepreneurs, but inventors, innovators, investors, technologists, advisors and additional supporting players and infrastructure as well) can and does grow and contribute to the economy.
<br /><br />
Traditionally, this crew has mostly ignored what's happening in Washington DC -- and for a good reason: they're busy innovating.  Too often, it's the businesses that are trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/00441512884/entrepreneurs-who-create-value-vs-entrepreneurs-who-lock-up-value.shtml">hold back competition and change</a> that spend time in DC, while those who are <i>actually changing things</i> are much more focused on executing on their vision.  That leads to bad legislation.
<br /><br />
With the PIPA and SOPA fight blowing up so quickly, some of us worked together to put together an initial <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml">entrepreneur's letter</a> signed by 135 entrepreneurs asking Congress not to approve PROTECT IP.  Today, we're sending an updated version, which also covers SOPA, and is <a href="http://www.engineadvocacy.org/voice/about.html" target="_blank">now signed by over <i>200</i> entrepreneurs</a>, all concerned about the impact these bills would have on their ability to innovate.  A similar effort was put together by some of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110623/11401714827/top-vcs-tell-congress-protect-ip-will-harm-innovation.shtml">top venture capitalists around</a>. Soon after that, some of the signers of both letters teamed up to go to Washington, DC and speak to Congress about the bill.  Since then, we've helped others in the startup world go to DC as well.
<br /><br />
Out of all of this  came the idea to build this loose coalition of those involved in the startup world, which became Engine Advocacy.  It's an exciting group of entrepreneurs, investors, advisors and others who are very involved in driving new innovation via startups.  We want to make sure that the voice of the entrepreneur is being heard in Washington DC -- and that those in the startup ecosystem are aware of what's going on in DC.  We have big things planned over the next few months, and if you're interested in being a part of this, we urge you to sign up on the website.  Let's make sure that the engine of innovation, jobs and the economy is not stifled by politicians who simply aren't aware of what the consequences of their actions will be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/14034217000/engine-innovation-realizing-it-cant-ignore-dc-any-more.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/14034217000/engine-innovation-realizing-it-cant-ignore-dc-any-more.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/14034217000/engine-innovation-realizing-it-cant-ignore-dc-any-more.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>kicking-the-slumbering-beast</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111207/14034217000</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:40:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Mocks Entrepreneurs For Being Concerned About MPAA's Efforts To Stifle Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/16234115852/mpaa-mocks-entrepreneurs-being-concerned-about-mpaas-efforts-to-stifle-innovation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/16234115852/mpaa-mocks-entrepreneurs-being-concerned-about-mpaas-efforts-to-stifle-innovation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As a who's who list of top tech entrepreneurs have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml">come out against PROTECT IP</a>, noting how it will stifle innovation and limit their ability to create jobs, it's no surprise (no surprise at all), that the MPAA's propaganda machine felt the need to get cranking on the sophistry to try to mock the very real concerns of a large group of entrepreneurs.  The MPAA's Alex Swartsel -- last seen <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/10460415550/dear-mpaa-stomp-your-feet-repeat-it-as-many-times-as-you-want-infringement-is-not-theft.shtml">attacking reporters</a> for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/10585015615/course-new-fox-delay-means-more-unauthorized-downloads-fox-shows.shtml">accurately</a> predicting the same thing that the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110817/21584915568/mpaa-calls-mpaa-intellectually-dishonest-claiming-that-infringement-is-inevitable.shtml">MPAA predicted</a> -- has put up a post <a href="http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2011/09/08/Tech-Execs-Should-Read-the-PROTECT-IP-Act-Before-Attacking-It.aspx" target="_blank">mocking the many entrepreneurs who wrote and signed the letter</a>, claiming that they did not read the bill.
<br /><br />
First, she attacks the claim that the definitions in the bill are vague, by insisting that PROTECT IP is written "so narrowly focused that it covers only websites whose sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content."  Right.  But, if Swartsel is going to claim that the entrepreneurs didn't read the bill, then the very least she could have done was to have actually read our letter.  In it, we explain, quite clearly, the history of folks like the MPAA, insisting that pretty much every new technology's "sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content."  Need I remind the MPAA that their fearless leader, and the guy whose name sits on the building they now work from once said:
<blockquote><i>
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
</i></blockquote>
Forgive tech entrepreneurs building new platforms to allow for better distribution, promotion and monetization of films for worrying about which of them is going to be declared the next "Boston Strangler."
<br /><br />
And, let's notice that Swartsel fails to mention that when MPAA members Warner Bros. and Paramount were asked to help create a list that named sites dedicated to infringement, as per the vague definition above, that it included <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/01370314750/universal-music-goes-to-war-against-popular-hip-hop-sites-blogs.shtml">sites like The Internet Archive</a>, as well as some of the key platforms used by artists today, like SoundCloud and Vimeo.  Boston Stranglers, all of them.
<br /><br />
Next up, she mocks the idea that tech startups might face any legitimate "burdens" from PROTECT IP.  And then follows that up by listing out some of the very burdens that we would face under the bill -- including very vague rules about "reasonable measures" that tech companies will have to take to stay in compliance.  And what she leaves out is that the MPAA and people like Swartsel are the ones who think they get to define what's reasonable here.
<br /><br />
Want proof?  Looks no further than EMI insisting that it gets to decide if <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/12042915849/emi-there-should-be-no-safe-harbors-pre-1972-songs.shtml">MP3tunes is in compliance</a> with the DMCA.  Or MPAA-member Viacom suing YouTube for a billion dollars, claiming that it was not in compliance with the DMCA because it didn't magically figure out how to block all infringing content.  And, really, just look at how much time, effort and money have gone into those two lawsuits alone.  The entrepreneurs who signed the letter know that when the MPAA comes to sue, saying that their efforts didn't meet its definition of "reasonable," they're about to end up in court for years, and have to pay millions of dollars to do so.
<br /><br />
I'm sorry, Ms. Swartsel, but to a new startup building the next great platform, having to spend millions of dollars and a few years in court <b>is a significant burden</b> that can put many out of business.  Just ask Veoh and ReplayTV -- two companies that were, in fact, effectively put out of business by similar lawsuits.  Until Ms. Swartsel has to sit in front of her investors and explain to them why we have to spend the money they gave us fighting the MPAA in court, rather than building the next great platform, I'm not really sure she's in a position to comment.
<br /><br />
Next up, she claims that the arguments of Paul Vixie, on how PROTECT IP will break key parts of the internet and damage internet security have been "debunked."  That's just funny.  By "debunked" she means that the MPAA put out a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/03264515127/who-do-you-trust-whether-not-protect-ip-will-break-internet-guys-who-built-it-mpaa.shtml">silly statement</a> that effectively said, "hey, if we break the internet, you smart tech people should just go fix it again."
<br /><br />
Finally, she does the typical "but think of the starving artist" argument, by calling out Jason Stall and Ellen Seidler, the two poster children for the MPAA for filmmakers who complain about piracy, but fail to actually put in place smarter business models.  It's silly to get into a pissing match over this, but why don't we look at filmmakers like Kevin Smith who has pointed out that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/0132166123.shtml">fans downloading his films "leads to converts,"</a> and he then does amazing things to give those converts all sorts of reasons to buy -- such as by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110720/13060415176/kevin-smith-shows-importance-building-brand-as-part-cwfrtb.shtml">using the awesome TopSpin platform</a>.  Need we mention that TopSpin's CEO, Ian Rogers, signed the letter worrying about PROTECT IP?  Or how about all of the movies currently being <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110226/17514013289/crowdfunding-movies-possible-even-original-rather-than-derivative-works.shtml">funded by Kickstarter</a>, often raising <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110605/23455014559/is-it-bad-when-rich-famous-use-things-like-kickstarter.shtml">much more money</a> than they would have received otherwise.  Andy Baio, who helped build KickStarter, is among those who signed the letter as well.
<br /><br />
These entrepreneurs are very reasonably concerned.  They're the ones who are actually powering the next generation of fillmmakers and helping them make money.  They're not whining about "piracy," but are focused on utilizing these new platforms, the same platforms that the MPAA wants to burden the next time MPAA member studios decide to put them on a list...
<br /><br />
If the MPAA was really concerned about filmmakers, it would help them embrace these new platforms that help them make money.  Not line them up in a witchhunt for new Boston Stranglers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/16234115852/mpaa-mocks-entrepreneurs-being-concerned-about-mpaas-efforts-to-stifle-innovation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/16234115852/mpaa-mocks-entrepreneurs-being-concerned-about-mpaas-efforts-to-stifle-innovation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/16234115852/mpaa-mocks-entrepreneurs-being-concerned-about-mpaas-efforts-to-stifle-innovation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>of-course-they-do</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110908/16234115852</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Sep 2011 02:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation &#038; Hurt Job Growth</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of people have been speaking up about why PROTECT IP is a terrible, terrible idea that will have massive unintended consequences for innovation online.   We've seen the biggest names in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110623/11401714827/top-vcs-tell-congress-protect-ip-will-harm-innovation.shtml">venture capital</a> tell Congress that PROTECT IP would chill investment in new innovations.  We've seen <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110531/13331214491/why-protect-ip-breaks-internet.shtml">top technologists</a> explain how PROTECT IP messes with fundamental infrastructure and security elements of the internet.  And we've had a bunch of well respected law professors explain to Congress that the bill is almost certainly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/01205814962/law-professors-come-out-against-protect-ip.shtml">unconstitutional</a>.
<br /><br />
One voice has been missing, however: the actual tech entrepreneurs and startup execs who will be impacted most directly, because PROTECT IP will put both the costs of compliance and the burdens of liability directly on their shoulders.  Entrepreneurs are famous for staying out of policy debates like this.  This isn't a surprise.  Entrepreneurs are focused on building the next great innovation and the next great company -- creating lots of new jobs both directly in their companies and via the new innovations and platforms they create.
<br /><br />
PROTECT IP is such a dreadful, job killing bill that it's finally sparked entrepreneurs to speak out.  A large group of entrepreneurs, both well known and less well known, have teamed up to <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1_etELzzh_ngZAs-V_4dbvfgE_o1UEVMwA80bo3RZSXs" target="_blank">send a letter to Congress warning about the impact of PROTECT IP</a>, and asking them to reject this bill which is nothing more than an attempt to give a handout to the entertainment industry.  Over 135 entrepreneurs have already signed on (yes, including me).  Collectively, these entrepreneurs have directly created over 50,000 new jobs in their companies, but more importantly have created hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs via their innovations, platforms and services.
<br /><br />
It's great to see such a diverse group of startup entrepreneurs -- many of them serial entrepreneurs -- team up on such an issue.  The list of participants includes folks like Evan Williams, the founder of Twitter and Blogger, Ian Rogers, the CEO of TopSpin, Mark Pincus, founder and CEO of Zynga, Dennis Crowley, founder &#038; CEO of FourSquare, Joel Spolsky from StackExchange &#038; Fog Creek Software and Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn.  It includes people like Chris Shipley of Guidewire Group, who for years ran the DEMO conferences and Tim O'Reilly (who I'll just assume you know because you've read the books he's published).  It includes entrepreneurs from great platforms like Kickstarter, IndieGoGo and GiltGroupe.  And there may be some names on the list that you might not recognize today, but who are building the next generation of great startups to produce services that you will use in the future.  It's really a who's who of entrepreneurs who helped build the key internet services you use today and will use in the future -- and they're all quite reasonably scared of what PROTECT IP means and how it will chill innovation in the startup community.
<br /><br />
All of us who put together this letter want to make sure that the voice of entrepreneurs is heard loud and clear -- and as such, we're still accepting additional signatures from entrepreneurs.  If you've been a founder or held a job-creating role at a startup, please sign the letter as well, following the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1_etELzzh_ngZAs-V_4dbvfgE_o1UEVMwA80bo3RZSXs" target="_blank">instructions</a> at the top of the document, and we can continue to make sure that the voice of the folks who really create new jobs and support the economy are actually heard from in DC.
<br /><br />
Members of Congress and the President claim that they're focused on passing legislation that creates jobs.  So why are so many pushing for PROTECT IP, when the companies who actually innovate and create the new jobs for the future are so against it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110907/15472915844/top-entrepreneurs-warn-congress-protect-ip-will-stifle-innovation-hurt-job-growth.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>speak-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110907/15472915844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:04:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Entrepreneur Magazine's History Of Suing Entrepreneurs For Using The Word Entrepreneur Gets More Attention</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20110531/00535214469/entrepreneur-magazines-history-suing-entrepreneurs-using-word-entrepreneur-gets-more-attention.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20110531/00535214469/entrepreneur-magazines-history-suing-entrepreneurs-using-word-entrepreneur-gets-more-attention.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last fall, we wrote about Entrepreneur Magazine's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101010/23344411350/entrepreneur-magazine-claiming-it-owns-the-word-entrepreneur.shtml">ridiculous attempt</a> to get an entrepreneur/writer/speaker who was pitching to use the name "entrepreneurology.com" to give up the domain.  Trademarking the word "entrepreneur" seems particularly ridiculous, and BusinessWeek recently ran an excellent article <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/11_22/b4230078121476.htm" target="_blank">detailing Entrepreneur Magazine's history of suing entrepreneurs for using the word entrepreneur</a>.  It also, amusingly if somewhat tangentially, delves into the history of Entrepreneur Magazine's founder (who is no longer associated with the magazine), who was arrested at one point in his career for robbing banks.  Entrepreneur Magazine and its lawyers were not all that happy to cooperate with BusinessWeek on the profile, noting that they didn't want to help a competitor, and also pointing to trademark lawsuits from BusinessWeek's parent company Bloomberg.
<br><Br>
Either way, it does appear, tragically and ridiculously, that Entrepreneur Magazine has won some of these previous lawsuits against other entrepreneurs.  However, the creator of Entrepreneurology took the initiative and sued for declaratory judgment after receiving his cease-and-desist letter from Entrepreneur Magazine -- and is trying to invalidate the trademark, claiming the word is generic and not at all associated with the magazine.  Entrepreneur Magazine vehemently denies this, of course, but as BusinessWeek points out, the magazine's own legal fights have argued otherwise at times:
<blockquote><i>
In the litigious precincts of intellectual property, the aggressor inevitably finds itself chasing its own tail&mdash;and EMI and its lawyers have actually tried to use the "generic" argument to their advantage. In 2008, Ernst & Young, one of the Big Four accounting firms, sued EMI in federal court in New York, alleging that the publisher violated its trademark for an Entrepreneur of the Year award. The dispute over the prize dates to 1994, when Ernst first sent EMI a cease-and-desist missive aimed at Entrepreneur's similarly named award. EMI fired back in a lawsuit in California that Ernst's award trademark cannot be infringed because "entrepreneur of the year" is a generic term. In the end, Ernst and EMI settled their differences confidentially and out of court. EMI changed its award name slightly (nominations for "Entrepreneur Magazine's Entrepreneur of 2011" are now open), while Ernst is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its trademarked Entrepreneur of the Year program.
</i></blockquote>
Oh, and you may note one other oddity in the paragraph above.  Entrepreneur Media Inc., refers to itself as EMI.  You have to wonder how it's never been sued by the record label EMI, with which there could be <i>actual</i> confusion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20110531/00535214469/entrepreneur-magazines-history-suing-entrepreneurs-using-word-entrepreneur-gets-more-attention.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20110531/00535214469/entrepreneur-magazines-history-suing-entrepreneurs-using-word-entrepreneur-gets-more-attention.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20110531/00535214469/entrepreneur-magazines-history-suing-entrepreneurs-using-word-entrepreneur-gets-more-attention.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>entrepreneur-entrepreneur-entrepreneur</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110531/00535214469</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:47:41 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ideas vs. Execution Shows Why Competition Is A Good Thing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100627/0206109973.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100627/0206109973.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I was recently talking with a group of folks who were discussing an idea for a new product, which I thought was pretty compelling.  However, one of the concerns raised by someone in the group was the fact that there seemed to be a few other companies already in that space, and while they weren't doing the exact same thing, there was concern that this product wouldn't be considered "new."  This is an issue that comes up a lot, and one that we recently talked about in suggesting that companies need to get over the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100615/0302599824.shtml">wasteful and inefficient view</a> that everything they do has to be wholly invented from scratch.  Along those lines Chris Dixon has an excellent post, which he titles: <a href="http://cdixon.org/2010/06/26/competition-is-overrated/" target="_blank">"competition is overrated,"</a> but I think he really means that <i>fear of</i> competition is overrated.  He notes that competition in a market often means you're on the right track:
<blockquote><i>
Almost every good idea has already been built. Sometimes new ideas are just ahead of their time. There were probably 50 companies that tried to do viral video sharing before YouTube. Before 2005, when YouTube was founded, relatively few users had broadband and video cameras. YouTube also took advantage of the latest version of Flash that could play videos seamlessly.
</i></blockquote>
Similarly, just because there are so many companies in a market, it doesn't mean any of them are really executing well:
<blockquote><i>
Other times existing companies simply didn't execute well. Google and Facebook launched long after their competitors, but executed incredibly well and focused on the right things. When Google launched, other search engines like Yahoo, Excite, and Lycos were focused on becoming multipurpose "portals" and had de-prioritized search (Yahoo even outsourced their search technology).
</i></blockquote>
In fact, this succinctly reiterates a whole bunch of the points that we've discussed repeatedly over time.  First, there's a big difference between <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/0336421112.shtml">ideas and execution</a>.  Just because others are in the market (and even well established), it doesn't mean you can't do a better job.  It also highlights the difference between <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050322/1528251_F.shtml">invention and innovation</a>, where invention is just coming up with something new, but innovation is really bringing it to market successfully.  Facebook and Google are both great examples of innovative companies who didn't really "invent" their initial markets.
<br /><br />
And Dixon then brings it back to the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100426/1535079178.shtml">value of <i>imitating</i></a>, on which there's now an excellent book out (which I'm still only partially through) called <a href="http://hbr.org/product/copycats-how-smart-companies-use-imitation-to-gain/an/2673-HBK-ENG" target="_blank"><i>Copycats</i></a>.  Dixon points out that in being a "follower" initially, you can build off of their work:
<blockquote><i>
The fact that other entrepreneurs thought the idea was good enough to build can be a positive signal. They probably went through some kind of vetting process like talking to target users and doing some market research. <b>By launching later, you can piggyback off the work they've already done.</b>
</i></blockquote>
On top of that, I would argue that you can also <i>avoid</i> some of the mistakes that they make.
<br /><br />
In the end, he points out that worrying about competitors is really usually the least of your issues as a startup:
<blockquote><i>
Startups are primarly competing against indifference, lack of awareness, and lack of understanding -- not other startups. For web startups this means you should worry about users simply not coming to your site, or when they do come, hitting the BACK button.
</i></blockquote>
Consider that the startup equivalent of the messages told to tons of content creators these days: that obscurity is a much bigger threat than "piracy."  In the same way that "piracy" is really just "competition," those too focused on that sort of competition will often miss the more important fact that you need to find actual, real users and customers who are going to stick around.
<br /><br />
One other point on all of this: when you limit a market to just one player (via monopolies like patents), you can actually lose out.  You don't get those other players in the market that you yourself can piggyback off of as well, and there's less incentive to get the formula right.  Competition is a good thing in how it drives a market, but if you're working in a startup, you shouldn't necessarily be so worried about it directly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100627/0206109973.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100627/0206109973.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100627/0206109973.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-a-sign-of-a-market</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100627/0206109973</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Announcing: The Entrepreneur's Corner</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1445298719.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1445298719.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you may recall, a few months back we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/itinnovation/articles/20091130/1453567134.shtml">launched</a> the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/index.php?edition=itinnovation">IT Innovation</a> site, sponsored by Sun and Intel, which has been a great program.  Now we're launching another site, this time for small business owners and entrepreneurs, called <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/index.php?edition=entrepreneurs" target="_blank">The Entrepreneur's Corner</a>, brought to you in partnership with <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;222238857;45642232;g" target="_blank">AcceptPay</a> from American Express.  Like the IT Innovation site, the Entrepreneur's Corner will have a mix of content cross-posted from Techdirt, as well as unique individual stories, such as this one, on what the health care reform bill <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100324/1804318706.shtml">means for small businesses today</a>.  Also, as with anything we post on our sites, the content is editorially independent of any advertisers or sponsors.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1445298719.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1445298719.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1445298719.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>enjoy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100325/1445298719</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Entrepreneur Stuck In Canada Highlights The Need For A Startup Visa Now</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0244076368.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0244076368.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've publicly thrown <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/1625486153.shtml">my support</a> behind the idea of a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090413/0156184477.shtml">startup founders' visa</a> that makes it much easier for foreign skilled workers who want to come to the US to start companies and create jobs to do so.  Right now, our immigration policies do not favor entrepreneurs at all.  The good news is that this very <a href="http://startupvisa.com/" target="_blank">grassroots movement</a> has actually picked up some steam, with a ton of support from the startup ecosystem around the country.  Whether or not that translates to enough political momentum remains to be seen.
<br /><br />
To understand just how important this is, here's one story of an entrepreneur who's been working hard to help build a startup in Silicon Valley who, only just this week, has <a href="http://sharanreddy.com/2009/09/founders-visa-please/#content" target="_new">found himself stuck in Canada</a> unable to get back to the US, despite believing he had the proper visa (in this case, an H-1b).  The story is depressing, and reminds you of all the ridiculous bureaucracy that people are forced to go through for something that makes no sense:
<blockquote><i>
Just as everything seemed to be going so well, I came up to Vancouver on September 24th to renew my H1b visa and it turns out the approval I got last year is not worth it's weight in paper. Upon appearing for my interview, my previous approval notice was held by the consulate till I furnished a ton of extra documentation from our tax filings  last year, to a full report of all employees, all of my bank statements right down to the photographs of our work area (as alien founders we cannot have startups in garages and our apartments, it has to be in real offices).
<br /><br />
I worked through the rest of Thursday and all through the night gathering all this evidence.... So after working through the night to get the evidence to the officers the very next day by 11:30 am, I was told that my application would take a week to  be reviewed.
<br /><br />
My biggest concern is that an LLC due to it's structure doesn't pay a salary to it's members but a guaranteed payment. My attorney has already warned me that this is a slippery slope to start explaining to consular officers when the time comes.
<br /><br />
Now leaving aside the exorbitant costs of living in a city like Vancouver for a week, I don't have to talk about what an entire week means in startup terms. This particular week in question, since we're in fundraising mode, I have had to cancel a meeting with Comcast Capital and cannot present at the Plug and Play Expo on Thursday Oct 1st  - they were nice enough and believed in our product to pretty much waive the $1500 participation fee, only to realize I can't make it.
</i></blockquote>
It makes no sense that someone like this should be going through this sort of ridiculous bureaucratic process, held back by bureaucrats who don't understand how startups work.
<br /><br />
Brad Feld, the venture capitalist who deserves all the credit in the world for taking this concept -- originally proposed by startup investor/mentor Paul Graham -- and actually getting some political interest in it, has a post discussing <a href="http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2009/09/startupvisa-momentum.html?utm_campaign=foundrygroup&#038;utm_medium=fndry.gr-copypaste&#038;utm_source=&#038;utm_content=site-basic" target="_blank">the momentum</a> and some open questions.
<br /><br />
The main open question he brings up is about how investors can "sponsor" an entrepreneur.  Basically any qualified venture capitalist or "super angel" who is investing at least $100,000 in a round of at least $500,000 could sponsor a founder.  I have to be honest that I'm not sure I agree with this.  Why should the visa be dependent on <i>financing</i>?  These days, we're hearing about more and more startups that are bootstrapping their way to success, or getting by on much smaller amounts of money.  If a founder can build a successful company without raising $500k, should they not be allowed to take advantage of the startup founder's visa as well?
<br /><br />
The proposal goes on to have renewal rules, as well, that also are dependent on job creation and raising more money.  The job creation bit I can understand, but again I am troubled by the "raising money" bit.  Why should the investors be the gatekeepers in determining who gets to be an entrepreneur?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0244076368.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0244076368.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0244076368.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-shouldn't-wait</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090930/0244076368</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:28:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Will Bogus Patent Lawsuits Lead Entrepreneurs To Leave The US?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0232405231.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0232405231.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ At a time when we're supposed to be looking to entrepreneurs to bring us out of today's financial crisis, it's too bad to hear that our draconian intellectual property laws are driving people elsewhere.  You may have noticed that the original file sharing success stories were in the US -- Napster, Grokster, Streamcast.  But following the legal attacks, the more recent success stories have all been foreign: The Pirate Bay, Mininova, isoHunt.  That's not a coincidence.
<br /><br />
Will the same thing start happening due to over-aggressive patent litigation, as well?  We recently covered how enforcement of some very basic patents against tons of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090601/0007575076.shtml">small photo hosting sites</a> was threatening to put a bunch of small businesses out of business.  Joe Mullin has now revisited the subject and noted that at least one of those companies is <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/06/fotomedia-technologies-fotki.html" target="_new">considering relocating outside of the United States</a> because of all of this.  This is a guy who came from Russia, because the US represented opportunity and freedom from crazy Russian bureaucracy and monopolies.  And, here he finds himself in a similar mess -- dealing with patent infringement lawsuits for things his company had on the market well before these patents were even filed.  Yet, to defend against such an attack it so costly that it's easier to just leave the country.  Driving entrepreneurs out of the country isn't exactly "promoting the progress" now, is it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0232405231.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0232405231.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0232405231.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-a-good-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090615/0232405231</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Rise Of Anti-Spam Lawsuit Entrepreneurs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0950542491.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0950542491.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I'll admit that many years ago, when I first heard about people trying to <a href="http://blog.techdirt.com/articles/20010622/140225.shtml">sue spammers for profit</a>, it sounded like a pretty cool idea.  No one likes spammers, and being able to sue them and make some money off of it sounds good, right?  But it appears that it's becoming a bigger business these days, and in a story about a specific case from one such person, Eric Goldman reasonably <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/10/email_ad_networ.htm" target="_new">questions the tactics of some of these "anti-spam litigation entrepreneurs,"</a> noting that they often <i>seek out</i> spam, just to have more to sue over.  That seems highly problematic.  If they're purposely putting their email address out there just to get spam, with the intention of suing over it, it's difficult to see how they have much of a claim to complain about the spam received.  
Now, it appears that some judges are starting to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070807/005917.shtml">fight back</a> against clear profiteers, who are clearly not using the law as a way to fight spam, but just to profit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0950542491.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0950542491.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0950542491.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>give-me-spam-so-i-can-sue-you</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081008/0950542491</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>