The Guardian recently had an article wondering if “the internet” was killing the idea of the local music scene with a “local sound.” In discussing that article, Glyn Moody says it’s much more likely that it’s absurd licensing regimes that are killing local scenes. Indeed. This is something we’ve discussed for a few years. The excessive demands of licensing and collection societies have really damaged local music scenes harming countless up-and-coming musicians by closing down the main venue for most new musicians to build up their performance chops through demands for ridiculous and excessive licenses.
Across New England, church coffeehouses, library cafes, and eateries that pass the hat to pay local musicians or open their doors to casual jam sessions are experiencing a crackdown by performance rights organizations, or PROs, which collect royalties for songwriters.
The FurdLog blog wonders that if people say downloading unauthorized material is “theft,” then what should we call this practice of performance rights organizations bullying small venues around the country into closing. What a shame. It’s really stunning how much harm ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are doing for musicians — the very people they’re supposed to help.
Igor Zevaka was the first of a few of you to point to John Green’s video where he discusses the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit with a bit of a twist, highlighting the fact that Viacom is making money off of amatuer content, without the rights to do so. Viacom owns Spike.com (a subsidiary of MTV), into which it folded iFilm.com, home of all sorts of amateur content, including content such as a Jonathan Coulton video that has a clear Creative Commons license — but only for non-commercial use. However, on Spike.com… it’s covered in ads sold by Viacom. So, Green wants to know, has Viacom paid Coulton?
It’s a fun video (though, Green is trying too hard to be Zefrank) that does make a good point — though, I’m a bit disappointed that it (a) does not link to the Spike.com Coulton video he’s discussing (I went searching for it, and it looks like it’s been taken down) and (b) plays a little fast and loose with the facts of the lawsuit itself (to the point of being inaccurate at times). For example, he keeps saying that Viacom just wants a cut of YouTube’s advertising, but that’s not really accurate. It’s asking for statutory damages for copyright infringement, which has nothing to do with advertising or advertising rates. It’s also not clear where he comes up with the numbers he uses for what Viacom owes Coulton.
Either way, it would be interesting to see if anyone has more evidence that Viacom properties are improperly monetizing CC non-commercially-licensed videos. That would seem like a relevant point in the ongoing lawsuit…
After seeing so many stories of various collection and performance licensing groups being able to boost their rates and expand their coverage over the past few years, it’s nice to see at least some pushback. IanVisits points out that, over in the UK, the Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) has lost a lawsuit which claimed it had seriously overcharged. So now pubs, bars and restaurants can start claiming refunds. Of course, a bit annoyingly, these venues have to proactively make a claim. Contrast that to demands from such collection societies about how you automatically have to pay up for a license… The article also notes that the ruling requires new rates, with some pubs and restaurants expecting the money they have to pay to be cut in half. Nice to see that more venues might be comfortable playing and promoting music again…
Back in April, I wrote a post about Daniel Pink’s new book, Drive, in which he highlights the rather stunning amount of counterintuitive research that suggests that money can actually make people less motivated to do creative works. Since then, I got a copy of the book myself, but it’s in the stack with about five books that I want to get to before it, so I may not get to it for a while. However, a lot of folks have been passing around this great video of a 10 minute presentation that Pink did, which was then whiteboard animated. It’s really well done and fun to watch and basically summarizes the idea in the book:
The same point is made in the presentation, but it clarifies it a bit. It’s not that money isn’t important. That finding would make little sense at all. As people note all the time, you need to be able to make money to survive. But, it’s that once people have a base level of money that makes them comfortable, using monetary incentives to get them to do creative work fails. Not just fails, but leads to worse performance. As we noted in the original blog post about this, my initial inkling was that this highlighted a point often forgotten by economists and non-economists alike: while marginal benefit is often considered in terms of dollars, that doesn’t mean that cash is the the equivalent of marginal benefit. That is, you can’t just replace other benefits with cash. Sometimes people value other types of rewards even greater than the equivalent in cash. And, Pink’s book and presentation highlight how it’s often things like meaning and working on something fulfilling that are much more beneficial to people than cash. So it’s not that money is bad for creativity — but that having a direct pay-for-performance type scheme seems to create negative consequences when it comes to cognitive work (it works fine for repetitive work, however) — and other types of non-monetary rewards are a lot more effective.
And while it isn’t discussed in the presentation (and I don’t know if it’s discussed in the book), I wonder if the high monetary rewards in a “if you do this task, we’ll give you $x amount” manner actually has a strong cognitive cost. That is, the pressure to then do the task well in order to “earn” that money actually ends up causing a creativity cost that takes away from the output. When you’re just doing creative work for non-cash rewards, the pressure doesn’t feel quite as strong. When you put the dollar signs in, it adds mental costs, and those costs outweigh the cash rewards. It’s even possible, then, that the higher the cash reward, the greater the mental costs.
Related to all of this, Clay Shirky has also just come out with a new book, Cognitive Surplus (which isn’t yet in the pile on my desk, but probably will be soon) that builds on an idea that he’s talked about for years: about how all these claims that people doing stuff online for free is a “waste” totally misses the point. For the past few decades, people have devoted billions of hours to watching television. Yet, with the internet, rather than watching TV, they’re actually doing some creative work (sometimes for free). So when looked at in isolation, doing stuff for free may seem weird, when combined in the larger scheme of things as a substitute for mind-numbing TV watching, it’s actually a huge advancement.
Wired had the smart idea of having Shirky and Pink sit down and chat with each other, and they rehash some of these ideas, and how the concepts put forth in the two books seem to overlap. Moving people away from merely consuming content towards creating content leads to a huge boost in creativity and creative output — exactly what we’ve seen happening. And, it’s not because of monetary incentives — in fact, it’s often because of the exact opposite.
The more you think about it, the more this all makes sense, and the more you realize just how screwed up so many incentive structures are today, because so many people think that purely monetary incentives work best.
We’ve never understood JK Rowling’s stance against ebooks. Five years ago, we wrote about how she refused to allow ebooks of her books because she was afraid they would get “pirated.” Of course, that made no sense. By not offering an ebook version, she actually made sure that her books were file shared even more. As we noted, even five years ago, a group of Harry Potter fans were able to scan and OCR the release of a Harry Potter book and get it online within 12 hours of its release. And by not having an official version, the only version that fans could get electronically was the unauthorized version. Not offering an official ebook version does nothing to stop unauthorized file sharing. It only prevents you from actually getting money for sales of the official version.
This seemed obvious five years ago, so we’ve been perplexed that Rowling has continued to stand by her refusal to offer ebooks. However, Copycense alerts us to the news that Rowling is now finallyconsidering offering ebook versions, though it sounds like it may still be a long way off. Of course, given her misguided views on unauthorized copies, expect any official release to be locked down (not that it will stop or even slow infringing copies).
Last week, we wrote about how author Joe Konrath felt that authors were going a bit overboard worrying about file sharing, noting that there was no way to stop it, and fighting it was just a waste of effort. Instead, he wanted to focus on providing more value for his fans. Joe has since followed up his original post with a bit of an experiment: purposely putting one of his ebooks online for free to see what happens, even though it’s also available for sale:
I’ll keep track of my free downloads, Kindle numbers, Paypal donations, and my rankings on Amazon and B&N for the next 30 days, then post the results.
And he’s hoping people will help by promoting the book on various file sharing systems:
Also, I encourage pirates to post this everywhere. Go ahead and proliferate the internet with JACK DANIELS STORIES. You can explain that I’m encouraging it, or you can just take it and not say a word. I’d appreciate it if you post in the comments section where you’re uploaded it, which you can do anonymously. Or you don’t have to.
If anyone sees this ebook on file sharing sites, I also ask that you please post a link to it in the comments. The more places I can see this being shared, the better I can compare ebooks sold to ebooks shared.
Of course, some will complain that this is hardly a scientific experiment, but it should still be interesting to follow. My only worry with these types of experiments — of which we’ve seen many — is that it’s in the give it away and pray variety. That can and does work for some, but is something less than a complete business model that purposely ties a business model to the shared files. If I had to guess, I’d bet that Konrath will see a boost in sales for this particular book and other books. And that’s because he’s using this as a pure promotional strategy. Others will complain, of course, that such a strategy doesn’t work if every author does this. That’s true — and one of the reasons why I prefer more complete business models beyond “give it away and pray.” However, one of the key things of a good business model is recognizing good promotional strategies that remain “low hanging fruit.” And, in a time when you still have many authors freaking out about file sharing, embracing it is probably a good bit of low hanging fruit in building up an audience.
Reader mick writes in to alert us to a group of photographers in Australia who seem absolutely livid that the government’s latest toursim campaign sought to crowdsource photographs that could be used as part of the campaign. To me, that seems like a perfectly reasonable idea — in fact, a good idea in engaging people and getting them to take part in the campaign. But the problem comes from the fact that Tourism Australia asked people to let it use the photographs for free. That’s when a bunch of groups went ballistic:
The National Association for the Visual Arts, the Australian Copyright Council and the Arts Law Centre of Australia are protesting the conditions.
They are demanding the agency relicense any photographs used in the campaign to pay royalties to the artists.
Let me get this straight. Even though the whole thing is completely optional, and photographers, who don’t like the terms, have every right to just not participate, they’re pissed off that others can participate — of their own free will — by letting the Tourism campaign use their photographs freely. If the photographers don’t mind the terms, why should others? The reality is that these groups are trying to stomp out amateur competition. This whole hissy fit is about limiting the market to professionals, and keeping the amateurs out.
Arts Law Centre of Australia chief executive Robyn Ayres says the copyright rules set a “worrying precedent”.
“The creative industries play a huge role in our economy and our culture,” she said in a statement.
Of course the creative industries play a huge role in the economy and culture. But what does that have to do with willing participants letting the Tourism campaign use their images for free of their own free will?
“Refusing to license these photographic works in an appropriate way sends a message that it (government) does not value creative work in the same way as it values other economic assets.”
No, it shows that the Tourism group realizes that some people are more than willing to contribute their works for free for reasons other than direct payment.
Rose M. Welch points us to an interview with Cory Doctorow, where he discusses his decision to give away all of his books as free downloads (which, as you hopefully know, has been quite successful for him). As Rose notes, one of his quotes aptly sums up the basic position we’ve taken here at Techdirt for years:
As a practical matter, we live in the 21st century and anything anybody wants to copy they will be able to copy. If you are building a business model that says that people can only copy things with your permission, your business is going to fail because whether or not you like it, people will be able to copy your product without your permission. The question is: what are you going to do about that? Are you going call them thieves or are you going to find a way to make money from them?
This is what’s been so frustrating about this debate for so long. The focus, by many in certain industries (especially the music and movie industry), has relied so much on the “calling them thieves” part, rather than figuring out better ways to make money. Sure, if there were a way to stop unauthorized copying, that would make lives easier for those companies. But that’s a pipe dream. It’s not possible. And while it may take more work, once they stop complaining about it, and start realizing that there are ways to leverage that copying as free or cheap creation, promotion and distribution, suddenly it becomes an opportunity, rather than a threat.
We recently had a discussion about the legalities of fan fiction, and how some authors were adamantly against the concept (even if their views were on shaky legal grounds). While it is true that certain derivative works can be stopped, that also doesn’t mean it’s a smart thing, from the perspective of cultivating fans. Reader Eilieen now points us to the news of a fan-made film that builds on Joss Whedon’s Firefly TV show and Serenity movie:
“Browncoats: Redemption was made by the fans for the fans,” director Michael Dougherty explained to Wired.com by e-mail. “But we view this as an independent film; we had Firefly fans travel from all over the U.S. to volunteer their time as extras and other supportive roles in its production. Without them, this film would not exist, and it will only be successful with their continued help and support.”
Unfortunately, the article at Wired totally leaves out the question of whether or not the copyright holders know about this particular fan film, and if they’re okay with it. Plenty of movie makers — such as George Lucas — are perfectly happy with fan flicks, even to the point of encouraging them. But, in this case, it’s not clear if this is, in any way, sanctioned. While the filmmakers say they’re doing this for charity, that still suggests they’re hoping to make some money from the film to give to charity — which often is the trigger that sets off Hollywood lawyers.
Whedon, for his part, has always been good about cultivating super-loyal fans, and at the same time, of experimenting with smart business models. But, not everyone associated with Firefly/Serentiy have always been so sharp. Back when Universal Studios tried to market Serenity via its biggest fans, the lawyers at Universal (apparently kept separate from the marketers) tried to demand licensing fees from the fans that the marketing department was urging to promote the film.
Looking over the site of the movie itself, it does suggest that they were able to secure permission from everyone necessary — including both Universal and Fox (who ran the TV show) along with Whedon himself:
So here’s how it is, we’ve reached out to FOX, Universal Studios, Joss’ agent at CAA, and even Mary Parent who is now at MGM. Everyone we’ve dealt with has been extremely helpful and completely blown away the stereotype of what the Hollywood experience is like. And much to our surprise, we even have the blessing of Joss Whedon himself. We’ve reached out to both Fox and Universal to get a greater understanding of the legal permissions we needed to make this a reality and we set out to complete it. And thanks to mighty fine Browncoats like yourself…we have.
That’s slightly cryptic, but it sounds like all the legal permissions were granted, and perhaps this fan film will go ahead with all the official blessings. While it’s silly that such a permission-based culture is necessary, just to make a film celebrating something that people love, at the very least, it’s nice to see some Hollywood folks recognizing that fan fiction and fan films aren’t inherently bad things.
Then, there’s the clip of the part of Corman’s graduation speech, which, you’ll note is covered by a giant message from a dean at Columbia apologizing for the mess:
The dean’s apology reads:
It has come to our attention that a portion of our Valedictorian’s remarks at this year’s School of General Studies Class Day was taken from a comedy routine by Patton Oswalt. As an institution of higher learning that places a core value on respect for the works of others, we were surprised and disappointed to have learned of this matter today. Columbia University and the School of General Studies do not condone or permit the use of someone else’s work without proper citation. The student speaker has appropriately issued an apology to his classmates and to Mr. Oswalt for failing to provide such attribution.
Oswalt, for his part, wrote on his own site that while the kid apologized, he wonders about what sort of valedictorian would copy in such a manner:
Brian Corman apologized to me. Flat-out admitted his thievery, his stupidity. Owned it all. Good man. Still makes me wonder what he might have done to become valedictorian — I mean, if he’s willing to steal material for something as inconsequential as a speech, how rubbery did his boundaries become when his GPA and future career were on the line? Oh well.
Quite a story all around, and it raises a bunch of different points that we’ll hit in bullet form:
Joke copying: This is a popular topic that we’ve discussed a few times in the past. While it certainly does piss off comedians, they seem to ignore the fact that it’s not just quite common among comedians, but, historically, it was considered quite normal. That’s because people realized that there is no monopoly on being funny — and that it’s usually the timing and the delivery that matter much more than the joke itself (which can be seen in the clips above — where Oswalt’s version comes off much funnier than Corman’s copy).
Social mores: But, more importantly, it’s the social cost to copying that keeps this from getting too far out of line. In the comic world, comedians who have a reputation as big time joke copiers tend to get shunned. That’s not to say that many haven’t been successful still, but there is an effort within the community to self police, without any sort of legal regime needed.
Reputation: Related to that, what this really comes down to is a reputational issue. While Oswalt is wrong to call Corman’s actions “stealing,” he’s right to question the kid’s decision, and raise questions about his reputation. For a long time, now, Corman will be tagged as the guy who didn’t have the good sense to (a) know that it’s inappropriate to copy someone else’s work in a valedictiorian speech (b) realize that people would notice and (c) to realize that it would get a lot of attention, including a condemnation from the original comedian in the first place.
Notice, of course, that all of this is happening without the need to get the law involved, and the situation gets resolved quite nicely. Oswalt, deservedly, gets more attention for his act and his jokes. The kid gets a public shaming and his reputation (and job prospects?) take a hit. And, Columbia also gets a bit of a reputational hit as well for having a valedictorian who made these sorts of mistakes.
