Web


30
Jun 10

Interview at The Copyright Alliance about ‘Starving the Artist’

Recently I was contacted by The Copyright Alliance to answer a few interview questions about my latest book, Starving the Artist.  Part One of the Interview is now available, and Part Two is coming tomorrow can be read here..

For those of you unfamiliar with The Copyright Alliance, they are a “a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization dedicated to the value of copyright as an agent for creativity, jobs and growth.” They’re also the recent recipient of the Arnold Broido Award for Copyright Advocacy.

All-in-all, they’re a fantastic organization (in my opinion), and one that any creator or individual who cares about copyright or artists’ rights should be aware of and follow. You can learn more about them here.


29
Jun 10

Amazon.com Is Down

It appears that the web site for Amazon.com is down. Reports have been coming in through Twitter and elsewhere. From what I’m seeing, it is very likely a database issue, as the site loads but no products seem to be working.

Seeing as how both links for Starving the Artist here go to Amazon, and Amazon.com is down, I should point out you can also buy it at Barnes and Noble (plus it’s on sale there!).

I wonder how much money Amazon’s losing.  I’m guessing it’s a lot.

BTW, If you’re ever looking for a good way to see if a site is down for just you or for everyone, use http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com


15
Jun 10

Internet Retailer Recap of My Twitter Presentation

As some of you know, I recently spoke in Chicago at the annual Internet Retailer Conference and Exhibition.  My presentation was called “The Anatomy of a Successful Twitter Campaign” and basically focused on suggestions for how an online retailer should approach Twitter, and how to determine whether or not is is a good match for them or not.

I do plan on sharing my thoughts here on the site soon for those of you who were unable to attend, but in the meantime, Internet Retailer Magazine has done a good job summarizing my main points.  If you’d like the quick recap version, I recommend you read their article.  My own recap will be posted later this week soon.

Also, here’s a photo I found from one of the attendees of the presentation.

Owly Images


1
Jun 10

J.A. Konrath Is Not “Embracing Piracy” With His Free eBook Experiment

So this past Sunday, independent author, J.A. Konrath decided to run an experiment.  In order to prove his theory that piracy doesn’t hurt sales he’s encouraging people to steal one of his books for the next month.  Yes, that’s right – he wants people to freely trade, post, share, and distribute his eBook, Jack Daniels Stories for the next thirty days.  The way the experiment is set to work (note this is my simplified explanation) is that he will keep track of the current sales and ranking of the book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. and see how free trading of his books affects their sales.

To help spur this trading/sharing, he’s offering a zip file containing multiple formats of the e-book on his site. He’s also encouraging those who download the file to upload it to all the file sharing sites they use and distribute it in any way possible (or, if they prefer, not distribute it at all).  Basically he’s giving permission for people to steal his book so he can see if it really hurts sales.

The problem with this experiment however, is that it’s really nothing more than a marketing tactic. By giving permission for people to share this book he’s not, in any way. embracing piracy, but rather he’s embracing alternative distribution channels.  Copyright law grants the copyright holder or administrator the right to determine the price and distribution allowed for any work owned/administered, so obviously if he’s telling people to trade the file and download it without payment, that’s his right to do as the copyright holder. All he’s done is lowered the price of this book to zero for the duration of his experiment.  (If this non-price will continue to be enforced once the thirty days are up, and if so, whether he decides to do anything about it are unknown.) Continue reading →


26
May 10

Limewire is Begging for a Second Chance

In case you missed the news, Limewire is begging the music industry for a second chance.  You know, after they stole from it for a really long time.

What do you think? Should the music industry forgive and forget, instead taking this opportunity to try to monetize the immense userbase of Limewire users?  Is it even possible to convert them to paying customers?  Or are Limewire users just going to move on to another service?  Seeing as how it takes years for the music industry to stop a service like Limewire, maybe another can hop in for a bit (maybe dupe a few users) and make a couple million $. Or, perhaps due to the precedence set by this case the next one will fall all that much faster.

It will definitely be interesting from here on out.


26
May 10

The Erosion of Price Due to the Pervasiveness of “Free”

When it comes to any product, there are costs involved in its creation.  For things such as cars or waffles or underpants, part of that cost is purely in raw materials.  Each of these items is a physical good, requiring actual matter to create.  The same is the case for items like DVDs, books, CDs and videogames. The difference in these verus the formerly mentioned physical goods, however, is that the vast majority of their primary value (the reason that someone actually wants them) can be replicated digitally, without raw materials other than those that are typically already possessed by people, such as free space on a hard drive. Their primary value is information, and as such it can be broken down into simple bits and bytes and easily distributed for minimal cost.

The other portion of the cost that both of these types of items have is the cost of actual manpower to create.  There’s someone designing the underpants, just like there’s someone writing and performing the music. This even includes if a waffle was made by some sort of automatic waffle maker – that automatic waffle maker was created by manpower (or the robots that created it were created by people who programmed the robots). Or, if the music is completely computer-generated, someone created the computer program that allowed the music to be created. If a person’s time or talent has value, then creation has a cost.

The point I’m trying to make here is that everything has some sort of cost involved in creating it. Nothing is free to create.

With this cost come questions for creators. Do I pass any of that cost on to the consumer? What is my purpose for creating?  What is the price of my creation?

If any of the reason for the creator is monetary, then there must be some price to be paid by someone for some aspect (no matter how vaguely connected) to your creation.  If it’s not monetary, then what did you create it for?  Was it simply to better the human race?  Perhaps it was to strengthen the acceptance of a cause you feel strongly about. In both of those cases you’re at least charging the cost of a person’s time to consume your creation. There are plenty of creations out there that fall into all of these camps, and a lot more.  As such, there’s a lot of competition out there.

The easiest way to compete in business is by offering a lower price. If you are okay with assuming your time, knowledge, talent and effort are worth nothing monetarily, then it’s easy to offer your content for free.  With millions of people creating content today, a percentage of them are willing to offer their creations for free, and that percentage of a lot of people turns out to still be a lot of people. So what we have is a lot of content for free, competing with some content with a price. How does one compete with free? Continue reading →


16
May 10

Jaron Lanier’s Right: The Web Needs Some Scarcity

If you’ve been paying any attention to my recent Twitter updates, you can probably tell from my constant updates that I’m really digging reading You Are Not a Gadget, by Jaron Lanier. I’m a little over halfway through, but so far it’s an excellent look at how Web 2.0 and open/free culture are not only damaging our society, but destroying our importance as individual human beings.  It reminds me a bit of Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur, and whether or not you agree with the premise, I strongly recommend reading it.

What I want to discuss here, however, is from one single paragraph of the book.  It’s found at the bottom of page 102 (of the hardcover) and is part of Chapter Two, “What Will Money Be?” in a section labeled, “Pick Your Poison.”  In it, Lanier says the following:

“It is a common assertion that if you copy a digital music file, you haven’t destroyed the original, so nothing was stolen.  The same thing could be said if you hacked into a bank and just added money to your online account. … The problem in each case is not that you stole from a specific person, but that you undermined the artificial scarcities that allow the economy to function.  In the same way, creative expression on the internet will benefit from a social contract that imposes a modest degree of artificial scarcity of information.”

The reason I’ve deemed this specific quote worthy of its own write-up is this: it’s one of the most eloquent and comprehensible explanations of why everything on the Internet should not be free. Continue reading →