Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

    Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 08:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

    http://thetrichordist

    Oh, you're that douchebag troll.

    Reported.

  • On the post: Dan Bull Auctioning Off Another Custom Song On eBay

    Karl ( profile ), 23 May, 2012 @ 08:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pirate Dan

    He downloaded something he didn't need that some other creative person had worked hard on.
    That makes him a fist class jerk.
    Why do you hate software programmers?

    Just to clarify something here.

    Whether what Bull did was right or not, I've yet to meet a single musician who did not do exactly the same thing in the 90's. And I've known hundreds of musicians, from "pro" to amateur.

    In every case, it follows the same kind of trajectory: They pirate the software because they can't afford it. Then they either a) get good enough jobs to buy that software, b) get successful enough so that people pay for their recordings, or c) use something else that isn't pirated (open source, shareware/freeware, etc).

    And as long as the software isn't used professionally - that is, by commercial recording studios - then nobody really gives a shit about it. They know that if and when the musicians start making money, they will pay for it; and that if more people use the software, that means less people willing to switch (and learn entirely new software) when they can pay.

    And, by the way, I'm also studying to be a software programmer. Software programmers, by and large, side ideologically with the open source/free software philosophy, since they (and their companies) use those tools every single day to make money, often without having to pay a dime.

    So, no, I don't believe that Dan Bull is a "first class jerk." Nobody who is actually a software programmer does, either. It's a bit naughty, but not a big deal.

    For you to keep bringing it up shows us all that a) you don't respect musicians, and b) you don't respect the actual software engineers, either.

  • On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 10:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    kindly do me the favor of providing links to same.

    An analysis was actually done by Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/04193216996/harvard-law-professor-explains-why-felony-streaming-provisions-do-put-justin-bieber-risk-jail.shtml

    Andrew Bridges (of Fenwick and West) said the same thing to Forbes:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/under-sopa-justin-beiber-would-be-in-jail/

    the DOJ does not as a general rule act precipitously and with casual disregard for the rule of law.

    Considering the colossal failure that is Operation In Our Sites, it's hard to read that with a straight face.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 09:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: 20 bucks a record?

    You're also forgetting the cost of the person's time it takes to make something worth putting on that record

    To be fair, Amanda was not claiming this as a cost, either.

  • On the post: Dan Bull Auctioning Off Another Custom Song On eBay

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 08:00pm

    Re: Pirate Dan

    I was coming here to post something like "in b4 the haterz," as the kids say, but sadly I couldn't even do it. The first post here is by an anonymous coward who has nothing better to do than to lie about an indie artist who is actually successful.

    Why do you hate artists so much?

  • On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 05:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No one took it literally? You're kidding right?

    Of course everyone took it absolutely literally. With statements like the following, how can you not?

    Confusion brings face tattoo

    In his first from-jail interview, Bieber addressed the controverisal decision to have an ice cream cone tattooed on his face.

    "I told the guys I wanted to wear Gucci and they gave me this. I don't even know what it means."

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer Details How All That Kickstarter Money Is Being Spent

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 05:35pm

    Re: 20 bucks a record?

    Lies.

    You know something? I do know how much it costs to press vinyl, and though $20 might be high, it's not a "lie" by any stretch.

    Your costs are for a bargain-basement LP, with a single jacket. But there are plenty of other costs to take into account. Is this going to be on 120-gram (or higher) vinyl? Colored vinyl? Are you going with a one-step or two-step process? Are you going to have full-color inserts, gatefold jacket, or other packaging?

    You're also forgetting something (which everyone does): shipping. Shipping costs for a vinyl LP are pretty extraordinary - especially if you're shipping them to foreign countries (the shipping rates for overseas have risen astronomically over the past couple years).

    Factor in the costs for printing the cards, and $20 is not too unreasonable. Still a bit high, perhaps, but not outside of the realm of possibility.

    It's certainly not in the realm of being a "lie."

  • On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 03:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Chris Dodd's slander notwithstanding

    Oops, the article I linked to is talking about Rupert Murdoch's slander, not Chris Dodd's. Apologies.

  • On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 02:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The take away here is that copyright legislation is now toxic and there won't be any for a very long time. IP enforcement will migrate to industry agreements (like six strikes) and treaties.

    I think the take-away here is that overreaching copyright enforcement is toxic, no matter who does it.

    If it "migrates" to industry agreements, customers will leave those companies who agreed to it. And there are, and will continue to be, public outcries against "treaties" as well. Which doesn't bode well for those who make them, since they are all driven by the U.S.; and if it's a "treaty," it requires ratification by Congress, who will consider it too toxic to pass.

  • On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 02:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    EFF

    ...and other entities who were around before Google even existed, and whose funding comes from sources other than Google. Or who are publicly critical of Google.

    Public Knowledge

    ...who have also been critical of Google, and whose income comes primarily from individual donations and not Google.

    Not that it makes any difference whatsoever, since Google is not a "piracy apologist" by any stretch of the imagination, Chris Dodd's slander notwithstanding.

    These organizations stood up against SOPA/PIPA because they are truly grassroots. At the very least, they truly represent the grassroots of people who actually know the technology people like Dodd are trying to stifle.

    No matter who you are, you simply can't get millions of people to personally call their representatives, and tens of thousands of websites to black themselves out, just on your say-so.

    You, on the other hand, don't represent any sort of grassroots movement. Hell, you don't even represent the majority of people in the entertainment industry. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will actually be able to move into the 20th century. (And, yes, I know it's the 21st century now.)

  • On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They weren't fake drugs.

    According to the pro-SOPA crowd, they were.

    That the pro-SOPA crowd was pushing this absolute dreck, yet are accusing the anti-SOPA crowd of "misinformation," is the height of disingenuousness.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 22 May, 2012 @ 09:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    It can be set up in all sorts of different ways.

    Very true, but I'm kind of at a loss as to why you single out Kickstarter for questions like this. From an economic standpoint, Kickstarter is just another source of income. It would be treated like any other income source under copyright and/or contract.

    That's why I said "it is better to not narrow your scope to Kickstarter (or similar platforms), but to widen it to copyright laws in general." It sounded like you were criticizing Kickstarter for being perhaps more exploitative then other platforms for making money. There's absolutely no evidence that this is true.

    Of course, it's likely that wasn't what you were actually implying, and I was just reading too much into it. Even so, I'm still at a loss as to why you ask these questions about Kickstarter projects specifically, and not all collaborative projects in general.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 21 May, 2012 @ 07:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    You'll have to explain what you are thinking about here.

    Well, I was thinking purely in terms of compensation, and deciding who gets what money. This is what you were asking:

    I have been wondering if anyone is doing Kickstarter projects as true collaborations and if so, how they decide who gets what compensation.

    That aspect of it is set in stone, legally speaking. If money is involved, everyone had better have signed a contract, or at least come to some sort of quasi-legally-binding agreement.

    The things you're talking about in that post you linked to, seem to be more about the creative or artistic side of things. That's a totally separate question. Truthfully, I don't know if it can even be discussed. Unless it's a collaborative medium with well-defined roles and boundaries, like a film, it depends entirely on the personalities involved. Some collaborations work best democratically; some work best with one person in charge.

    I've collaborated with several other musicians over the years (mostly drummers, some other vocalists, etc). Even though it's just me and one other person, the dynamics have been totally different every time.

    Whenever I've done this, the money has always been divided up equally (unless one person rents a van or something, then it all goes to them). It's always been gentlemen's agreements, since the money isn't very much. If there's anything more than that (like a release, even a free one on the net), then I always discuss it with the other person beforehand. I've had no problems to speak of.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 21 May, 2012 @ 12:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They retain the humor and myth of the show, but aren't restricted with what they can do.

    Well, that's just it. I know there are infinite possibilities with the comics, I'm just worried about which of the infinite possibilities they went with. In particular, I'm worried that they relied to heavily on the Buffy series, and totally disregarded the Angel story line, and ignored what happened in the series finale.

    ...Yeah, I'm one of the twelve people who thought Angel was better than Buffy. So sue me.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 20 May, 2012 @ 11:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    I have been wondering if anyone is doing Kickstarter projects as true collaborations and if so, how they decide who gets what compensation.

    That's a very good question, but it's not one that can be answered by anyone except the "true collaborators."

    After all, every party involved must be on board with the whole project (by law). The compensation question is a decent one. But a better question is: why do some entities get to be compensated in certain ways, by law, and others do not have that legal privilege?

    When asking questions like this, it is better to not narrow your scope to Kickstarter (or similar platforms), but to widen it to copyright laws in general. Everyone involved with Kickstarter must obey the law, so you're now questioning the purpose/effectiveness of the law itself.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 20 May, 2012 @ 06:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    I suspect she is doing at least part of it differently than a work-for-hire arrangement with the others involved, but I don't know that for sure.

    I don't think she is. She's already paid for the raw album tracks and the artwork (all out-of-pocket). She mentioned that she "commissioned" the artwork, so I'm betting it's a standard work-for-hire situation. I'm betting it's the same with the musicians on the album. On the other hand, these are also the musicians she's touring with, so who knows what the arrangement is there.

    I very much doubt she pays anyone less than the majors would. I know for a fact that her publicists, booking agents, etc. get standard rates. That's why she needed the money in the first place.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 20 May, 2012 @ 06:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    And that's why I expressed surprise that more people haven't jumped at it.

    Well, considering they exceeded their funding goal with 20 days to go, I'd say people did jump at it.

    At least those who heard about it. In this case, the fact that they don't interact directly with fans probably has the most to do with it. Most of the comments come from people who heard about the project directly from the artists (Ellis in particular). On the other hand, not a lot from people who are "re-tweeting" or what have you.

    For what it's worth, I just posted a link on Facebook, and I'll almost certainly donate myself, though I don't know what level I'll be able to afford.

    Also, so this discussion isn't spread out to much:

    Both the filmmakers and Palmer are charging for private events, so I think it is comparable.

    Amanda is doing a bunch of these events, around the world. If you look at the numbers, counting just the NYC and LA events, Amanda has 87 backers, to The Canyons' 62. Amanda is ahead, but not by very much. On the other hand, she's charging a lot more ($300 vs. $100).

    The price points may also make a difference. For The Canyons, anything above $100 is fairly limited (and many are already sold out). Amanda actually has a higher ceiling.

    There's also the difference between the more expensive items. It could be that most people aren't buying the $100 Canyons package because they can get more for $150; and anyone who has enough to spend $100 on a project probably has enough to plop down the extra $50.

    You certainly see that with Amanda's package. Compare the two Boston events packages: one with only the art show ($250), one with the art show plus reserved tickets for the general-admission rock show ($300). Only 2 people bought the "art-show only" package; 45 paid the extra $50 for the rock show as well. (And did so even though they would pay far less if they'd bought tickets to the rock show separately.)

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 20 May, 2012 @ 05:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    Yes, I think publicity, whether fan-driven or media-drive, or both, plays a huge role.

    I think one of the major reasons for Amanda's success is that she doesn't differentiate between "publicity" and "communicating with fans." Viewing your fanbase as a walking ATM machine may work for fictional bands like Dethklok, but it doesn't work in real life.

    I'm not saying that this is what Schrader and Ellis are doing, at all. But they both interact far less with fans than Amanda does (though that's a very high bar).

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 20 May, 2012 @ 03:27pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I sincerely hope that Joss Whedon gets on this 'Bandwagon'.

    He already has, in some ways. Look at how "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" came about. Not through Kickstarter, obviously, but it's pretty clear that he's been trying to go direct-to-fan for years now.

    Which reminds me: I should see about picking up a couple "Buffy" comics. I'm still a bit skeptical, but I've heard they're good.

  • On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'

    Karl ( profile ), 20 May, 2012 @ 03:21pm

    Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far

    Two tickets to attend a private cast & crew screening and Q&A of "The Canyons" in Los Angeles or New York.

    Again, sorry to be a pest, but as to this particular package: there isn't even a cast and crew as of yet. Since the Kickstarter campaign reached its funding goal, it can stay open for as long as the filmmakers want it to (right?). So, this particular package might become a lot more popular once the casting is done - in fact, once that happens, I'm betting that tier will sell out rather quickly.

Next >>