You Get The . Info

A year and a half ago, we wrote about Kevin Kelly’s theory that to be a success as a content creator, you just need 1,000 “true fans.” These were the ultra-committed fans. The fans who would follow you to the end of the world and purchase whatever you came out with. And — more importantly — they’ll help bring more fans into the fold. The point isn’t that these are your only fans, but the most committed. At the time, I wasn’t sure if the 1,000 number was really accurate, but certainly agreed with the idea of more closely connecting with your biggest fans. My guess was that 1,000 wasn’t really enough. But, perhaps I was off in the wrong direction? Ariel Hyatt has been blogging about the concept of 1,000 True Fans and has an interview with musician Matthew Ebel, an up-and-coming musician who makes a living from his music, and breaks down the details — including pointing out that he makes 26.3% of his net income from just 40 hard-core fans.

Music Sales:

• CD Sales – 4.1%
• Digital Music Sales – 13.9%
• Subscription Site – 36.9%
• Live Shows – 18.1%
• Cover Gig Fees/Cover – 9.8%
• Original Gig Fees/Cover – 6.2%
• Tips (Including UStream) – 2.1%
• Works For Hire & Voiceovers – 8.2%
• Affiliate Sales (typically for my own albums/tracks) – 1.1%
• Licensing – 13.2%
• Independent Film – 6.6%
• Internet – 6.6%
• Web Design – 4.6% (I include this because I’m doing a website for a friend… it’s something I choose to do, but it is part of my income this year.)

Now, first thing I’ll point out is that I’m still not sure the numbers fully add up. Matthew doesn’t give a total amount earned, but in a comment says:

Suffice it to say that I’m renting a house in Wellesley, MA with a couple of room mates… I’m not starving, I can still eat sushi from time to time, and my car (neither a Pinto nor a Bentley) is paid off.

So, he’s making a living wage, but not raking it in, which is to be expected (and is certainly a hell of a lot better than many musicians). Now, of course, the other number that stands out above is the “subscription site” with the single largest percentage of his revenue. That would be his MatthewEbel.net site, where he offers a $5/month subscription offering. It actually looks quite a lot like the music business model I suggested back in 2003, so it’s nice to see someone making it work directly. Basically, it’s people paying for access to Matthew (he even admits that in the description, saying it’s like a permanent “backstage pass”). While subscribers will get regular access to new music as soon as he creates it, the selling point is special invitations and access to the artist.

And, of course, Ebel seems to certainly recognize the CwF (connect with fans) part that has to go along with this RtB (reason to buy). In the interview, he discusses the importance of really connecting with those fans. First, he notes that one of the nice side effects of his “subscription” offering is that he promises fans two new songs and one live concert recording every month, and that keeps him top of mind:

Little did I realize that new releases every two weeks would be better than any good album reviews or press coverage. Giving my fans something new to talk about every two weeks meant exactly that: they talk about me every two weeks. They’re not buying an album, raving about it, and losing interest after a few months, they’re constantly spreading my name to their Twitter followers, coworkers, pets, etc. Regular delivery of quality material is damn near my one-step panacea for the whole industry.

And, of course, he uses social media to connect as much as possible:

Good music is barely enough to get fans to hand out 99¢ anymore; they have to be emotionally invested in the artist if that artist wants their loyalty. Don’t get me wrong, there can still be a “fourth wall” during a live concert or video, but real, meaningful connection with the fans is what keeps me in their heads after the show’s over (heck, even your “character” can interact with fans in-character). I chat with my fans via Twitter, Facebook, matthewebel.com and matthewebel.net, and as many other channels as possible. The more I interact with them between performances, the more I stay fresh in their minds and the more inspiration I draw from them.

Yet another musicians showing how CwF+RtB works. Now, I’m sure some will complain that this isn’t a “real” success because he’s not selling out stadiums or something (of course, those are the same people who would say that those selling out stadiums don’t count because they can afford to do crazy experiments). But given how many musicians we’re hearing about these days making exactly these types of things work to the point where they can make a living doing it, you have to begin to realize that something’s working.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

A bunch of people have been sending in John T. Unger’s story, claiming that someone who copied his artwork is now suing him in federal court over copyrights. The general sentiment from the submitters, it seems, is to support Unger’s position. I avoided writing about this for a while, because the story is actually a lot more complex, and since I think Unger is going too far, I thought it might upset some folks. Plus, the story is pretty complex. Thankfully, the good folks over at Consumerist actually really did an excellent job laying out a pretty balanced look at the issues that doesn’t automatically side with Unger.

Here’s the summary of the situation:

• Unger makes “firebowls” — decorative metal bowls that you light a fire in (I had no idea such things existed).
• He copyrighted the design of his firebowls.
• He then discovered that Rick Wittrig was making firebowls that look remarkably similar, but are a bit cheaper.
• Unger got angry and sent a cease-and-desist
• Wittrig filed a lawsuit to claim that Unger’s registered copyrights are not legitimate, as there shouldn’t be any copyright on utilitarian objects.
• Unger writes up his side of the story (small artist being ripped off!) and asks people to fund his legal defense using popular crowdfunding site Kickstarter

As Consumerist notes, it’s easy to quickly side with Unger without understanding the full story, saying that he’s an artist who got “ripped off,” but that’s not at all clear. Yes, it does seem pretty likely that Wittrig copied Unger’s designs (they match quite closely and at no point does Wittrig deny copying the designs). But it is a pretty big question as to whether or not Unger’s work really is covered by copyright (or should be). Now this whole story is the type of thing that people often bring up when I write about why copyright isn’t needed. This — they say — is a perfect example where copyright is necessary. Unger is mad because this other guy is “ripping him off” and passing off Unger’s designs as his own. Except, again, that’s not clear at all. Copyright was designed as an incentive to create — not a system to block all competition. In the fashion world, as we’ve noted repeatedly, knockoffs are quite common, and have helped the industry thrive. It actually helps make the brand name originators of the design worth more, because people want the “real” original kind.

So, without copyright, what can Unger do? Well, he’s actually already doing it. He put up a site that points out that Wittrig copies him, get lots of attention for it, and a lot more people now know about these kinds of decorative firebowls. My guess is that Unger is suddenly selling a lot more than he was before — and that’ll be true whether or not Wittrig gets the copyrights tossed out. And, in the meantime, having Wittrig around as competition should be good for Unger, pushing him to continue innovating and coming up with new designs.

Separately, I have to admit to some fascination over the use of Kickstarter’s crowdfunding platform to fund a “legal defense” rather than just as a way to sell products. Even if I don’t think Unger should have much of a legal argument, I think it’s a cool use of the platform, which also drives more interest and attention to his own bowls.

So, in the end, I think Wittrig should be free to make these firebowls and to sell them in the marketplace and compete with Unger. At the same time, though, I think Unger should be free to draw lots of attention to his own firebowls combined with the sympathy-inducing story of how he originated the designs that Wittrig copied. In the end, then, they’d both be better off, as it ends up getting both of them a lot more attention for the bowls, and those who feel sympathy for Unger, or who just want to support the “original” artist, will pay up for his versions of the bowls, whereas those who would rather save some money will pay Wittrig. In the end, both of them end up being better off, and no copyright battle needs to happen. Unfortunately, in an age where so many content creators have been taught to use copyright as a crutch, that’s not what we get.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

A couple years ago, some entertainment industry lobbyists hit on a new idea for trying to get Congress to legislate against file sharing software: figure out ways to blame it for stupid employees. More specifically, figure out a way to blame it for stupid employees… in the government. So, those lobbyists have worked hard to highlight every single time some sort of sensitive government information was leaked via file sharing programs, and then even got Congress to investigate file sharing programs, rather than government security policies or how the government deals with stupid employees who put sensitive information on home computers that also have file sharing software installed improperly (set to share everything). The latest is that they were even able to get a ridiculously poorly thought-out law proposed that would cause problems for nearly every software you use online. Brilliant.

So, of course, as the news broke that there was a leak of a Congressional ethics investigation, because a staffer put the document on his or her home machine that had file sharing software on it, the usual crowd of folks wasted no time at all in highlighting the use of P2P software and presenting file sharing as if it (rather than dumb employees and bad government security) was a huge national security threat and (of course) to urge Congresss to pass laws against file sharing programs. The one thing in common? All of those calls come from people who get paychecks from the entertainment industry.

Funny, I don’t see them calling for laws that would lock down and secure laptops, even though government employees lose thousands of laptops every year — many with sensitive information. I don’t see them calling for laws against email software, though I would bet that a lot more sensitive information is leaked by people simply emailing it to the wrong party. They don’t call for laws against the telephone, even though people leak info over the phone. What? No laws against dining in restaurants where you might here some info from folks at the next table? This has nothing to do with file sharing software. It has everything to do with poor security setup and dumb government employees. The claims that this happens so often are misleading. The federal government employs nearly 3 million people. We hear about these sorts of “leaks” once every year or so. Out of 3 million people, if anything, I’d be amazed there are so few leaks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

You may recall last year that the state of Oregon tried to claim copyright in preventing others from republishing Oregon laws. Yes, that seems incredibly counterproductive, and eventually the state backed down. However, it looks like Oregon’s Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General’s Public Record and Public Meeting Manual. Yes. A government official claiming copyright over a document on the public record. Wonderful. Carl Malamud is trying to get the Attorney General to issue an opinion that such things will not be covered by copyright. But, again, can anyone provide any good reason why any government document should be covered by copyright?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

It looks like the Senate has pushed back on the restrictions that the White House wanted on a journalism shield law. Not only does the new Senate version greatly limit the circumstances under which the White House could get around the law, it also goes back to covering amateur/freelance/citizen/participatory journalists as well. The White House had wanted the right to basically claim which stories wouldn’t count for shield law protection (meaning journalists would need to give up their sources). But the “compromise” bill from the Senate will only allow this in cases where the government can show (not just say) that the information is needed to prevent terrorism or substantial harm to national security. That seems a lot more reasonable. Of course, this is only the Senate version and the bill very well might change before it gets approved, but at least it’s good to see that it doesn’t just create a special class of “professional journalists.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

Over the past few years, there have been numerous lawsuits by telcos against various municipalities that have decided to launch municipal fiber broadband projects. Most of these lawsuits have failed — but the main argument from the telcos is that it’s unfair to have to compete against the government, and it would take away incentives for the telcos to actually invest in infrastructure to provide for those towns. Of course, that doesn’t make much sense. That would mean that any competition would decrease incentives to invest. One of the nastier legal battles took place in Monticello, Minnesota, where the local telco TDS fought hard (and lost) its battle to stop muni-fiber from showing up. But, now, suddenly TDS is announcing its own fiber broadband, giving people 50 Mbps service for $50/month. What’s the likelihood that TDS would have done this if it didn’t have competition from muni-fiber? The reason municipalities look to muni-fiber is because there isn’t enough competition and the telcos aren’t investing in infrastructure (or really serving customer needs). So the end result here is that by introducing more competition, consumers and citizens are better served. So what’s the problem with it again?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

An interesting ruling in the Arizona Supreme Court found that the metadata on a public record should be public as well — so people could, conceivably, look at who created certain documents and when they were created. While that might not seem like a big deal, as the article link above describes, plenty of interesting data often can be found in the metadata — such as what lobbyist wrote up what documents for other organizations to send. While this only applies in Arizona right now, you have to imagine that lobbyists are quickly learning how to better scrub metadata off their astroturfing letters.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

Just days after we wrote about a study that showed more government funding of the press leads to less reporting on government corruption, along comes the Washington Post with an editorial saying it’s time to have the federal government fund more journalism. I wonder how Watergate would have turned out if the Washington Post was relying on Nixon for cash… The editorial piece claims that no one is “filling the gap” left by fewer newspaper reporters, but presents no evidence whatsoever to support that. The market is changing, absolutely, but we’re seeing all sorts of new, unique and innovative ways of covering the news — often allowing much greater coverage than in the past. Getting the government involved may sound good to the Washington Post, but it hardly seems like the right formula for an independent press.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

In the past, we’ve had a bunch of stories about TV shows being released on DVDs having to change their music to deal with the fact that it wasn’t licensed for DVD release originally (often because when the TV shows were on the air, there was no such thing as a DVR — or even a VCR — so it couldn’t even have been predicted). Then, of course, there have been a series of famous lawsuits over whether or not publications can “republish” their old magazines in electronic format, because freelancers who wrote the original articles only signed licenses for the single publication.

However, it looks like lawyers drafting such legal arrangements are beginning to recognize this as an issue and are trying to prepare for such eventual new media opportunities. Eric Goldman alerts us to a WSJ article, highlighting how phrases like “in all media, throughout the universe” are becoming increasingly common in licensing contract language. While some decry this as being imprecise and overly broad, I tend to fall on the other side of the fence. Not having those types of clauses in agreements in decades past have resulted in a lot of long and drawn out lawsuits (and old content that simply cannot be repurposed for modern media). Better to have the language seem ridiculously inclusive than lose culture to history because no one predicted the next popular format.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized

In general, we’re big fans of the safe harbors found in the DMCA and the CDA, as they do what common sense should do instead: make sure that a third party is not held liable for actions of its users. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t always so common, and some people have trouble understanding this concept. In fact, it appears that a new bill may go in the other direction when it comes to investor information. A proposed bill that is supposedly designed to allow the SEC to better protect investors from bad info would potentially hold service providers liable for information posted by users if the service provider has “actual knowledge that the material contains a misrepresentation [or] in the absence of actual knowledge, is aware of facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a misrepresentation [and] upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, fails to act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.”

That would go against the basic Section 230 CDA safe harbors, so I’m not quite sure how you reconcile the two. In general, you can understand why it seems to make sense that service provider needs to remove such info, but it opens up all sorts of questions. Say someone in our comments posts some sort of misrepresentation. Are we now going to need to police that? If someone else tells us it’s a misrepresentation, will we now need to delete the comment? Are we expected to investigate whether or not some random comment on the site is a misrepresentation? Policing such things on forums all over the place would place an incredible burden on any website that allows user generated content. Why not keep the Section 230 safe harbors and focus on holding the actual parties (those who posted it) responsible, rather than the tools they use?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

By Mike Masnick

admin Uncategorized