It's not really about free ads, though
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And IMO it's not even about their experience with VHS time-shifting and video sales making them more money after they complained, as you correctly pointed out. (Of course, they also get a tax on blank media, still, for some reason...)
I think the real conflict is about control. Control of artists, users, and any possible bottlenecks between them are therefore a GOOD thing, to the RIAA, because that's control and they fear losing control even more than losing money -- even if it would lead to a better product for consumers (or better compensation-levels for musicians, who must also be controlled). JMR
and the do-er was harassed & arrested for trying it (your taxe$ at work). Ask him (he can be found at www.goldbarter.com these days, and his name is Jim Davidson). JMR
How space will be used (was: Re:I wonder...)
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I don't think the moon's resources will justify the proposed Chinese effort, but it's a symptom of the failures of central planning (as if we needed another) that they're trying to dictate what the market will be, rather than letting it happen naturally.
IOW, the US government should "stand by" and do nothing (whether they will resist the urge to waste taxe$ in space is another question). Let's look at how space-commerce (the voluntary, non-government-supported kind) is going in the real world, right now:
So far, it's ALL rich people, and all "tourism." 100%! No exceptions!!
This was to be expected, but think ten years (and maybe 100 orders of magnitude cheaper) down the road...Space-tourism is going to evolve toward one thing, and it's a thing that governments (of any sort) don't seem to want to consider:
SEX tourism. Couples are going to want to have intercourse without gravity (and without annoying swimming pools, scuba gear, etc.). Many honeymooners will want to, uh...start out with a bang (sorry! Couldn't resist).
This will happen naturally, I'm sure of it. Ultimately, all this sex will be the main thing supporting science up there, but no central planning bureaucrat (Chinese or US) will anticipate this, it'll just happen. I only wish that I could find some way to make money off my prediction when it comes to pass... JMR
(My own opinions, nobody else seems to want them.)
The problem is the model is changing and the industry execs don't want to change with it. They are comfortable.
That is one of the problems, and it's a big one, but it's not the only one...
Another problem is that what's currently called "ecommerce" (credit cards are a 1950s-era system, and they were not designed for the internet) takes far too large of a bite out of a $5 payment (which doesn't settle for sure for over a month, even with the big-bite). This bite is especially hard on "little-guys" (assuming they can even GET a merchant account, they'll pay more & be treated worse).
I sell something that can help little guys get around the getting-paid bottleneck simply, and with a far-smaller bite taken out of the payment. The big guys, whose generals are busily fighting the previous war, don't want to think about it yet, of course... JMR
Was said to have been sabotage, though nobody will say for sure. I think that hydrogen got an unfair rap as a blimp-fuel-and-filler from that incident (I'm sorry it happened on film, for that reason). Pictures make emotions.
Yes, hydrogen's flammable stuff, but it's lighter than helium and it burns cleanly, so I think blimps should still use it. Yes, there will still be sabotage and terror and all that, but there's no reason not to use hydrogen in lighter-than-air craft, except emotion. IMO. JMR
I've been saying the same thing (with maybe some gold instead of just green) for years...Artists may say that they like to experiment, and some experiment musically but the entire music business is rather conservative when it comes to circumventing the "ok, how do I get paid for this stuff" bottleneck that's currently controlled by the RIAA, or even thinking about circumventing it. If they could eliminate the bottleneck between consumers with money and artists (and I'd love to help, because being a middleman is quite profitable even if you DON'T grab more than 90% of the loot!) there's no real need for another entity (especially another large one!).
There are plenty of possible revenue streams out there for those willing to think about the problem. Courtney Love's making plenty of lawyers a lot richer, but "sue the record company" as a business-model is not going to get her any more income. The RIAA's generals want to fight the war-before-last, and musicians will eventually find out the hard way how dumb that is, IMO... JMR (These opinions are SOLELY mine, nobody else seems to want 'em anyway.)
Directly tip/pay musicians (I've said how ad-infinitum here, so I won't repeat my whole rant now). It's not hard to break the payment-system bottleneck and cut out the middlemen, I've been selling the tools for YEARS...
http://101574.clicktwocents.com tips me with my favorite kind of money if you've got any (and around here, I give the stuff away!) but I have 0 musical talent. The Radiators are quite good, though. JMR
Some of us have been saying how for quite some time here (I won't repeat my rant, look at previous comments if curious). Suffice it to say, the problem is the bottleneck in the (antiquated, insecure, 1950s) payment system everyone assumes will be their only choice, ever. JMR
Couldn't RR employ the same automated solutions you mentioned, without reliance on nice people to educate their admittedly clueless customers, or am I missing something?
Of course, the problems won't end until these same clue-impaired people learn how NOT to promiscuously click every unexpected arriving attachment, misconfigure machines, etc., but it still seems like the network owners could more easily detect and squelch something like Code Red. JMR
(I know, I keep saying this stuff...Now it's a rant).
This essay is a work in progress. It's a compilation of various rants of mine. If you have ideas for improvement (or critiques) they'd be welcome.
My saga into the online music controversy began at CFP99 (the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference). A panel with both an RIAA representative and a rap-artist and a few other folks were talking (actually they were mostly shouting!) at/to eachother.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is a very politically-well-connected music distribution cartel, consisting of five major record companies. The rap artist (whose name escapes me) had his own label, but he favored MP3s, too, because his music's popularity had grown in part due to online music trading. To summarize the arguments...
RIAA side:
You're a criminal, an ordinary thief! Taking this information is AGAINST THE LAW, even if you own the album/CD! The person who downloads music is stealing from musicians as much as a person who "pirates" software steals 'warez'!
Unknown Rap-dude's side:
No, you're a corporate shill, feeding enormous layers of middle men (who don't help our fans at all!) piled onto the backs of artists - who have 0 negotiating power against a giant cartel that's as powerful as the RIAA!
Needless to say, the session ended with the panel still arguing, mostly right past eachother. Everyone wanted to talk about the artists and the fans, but if you listened it was all about money even though words like "money" and "payments" were rarely if ever mentioned! A 1950s-era payment system was assumed to be the only alternative to "100% free."
I walked up, handing out business cards and quietly saying, "you know, I might have a solution to all this, it's called e-gold" to both sides, and both sides have been very slowly getting it (no marketing budget to speak of!) ever since! (Well, it's not been quite that bad, but it's close!) Now, I spend a lot of time asking artists to try e-gold, and some new tools have made it easier than ever to use.
One fan has set up http://www.radsfans.net for The Radiators, a very cool bar-band that should be more popular than they are, IMO.
I can understand why the RIAA dislikes the idea of e-gold. They hold onto their middleman position only because of the difficulty artists and fans have traditionally had in directly reaching or paying eachother. Some bands, like the Grateful Dead, thumbed their noses at anti-recording policies for years, though. I don't think Jerry's heirs are suffering now, despite the massive music-trading of recorded Dead shows which has gone on for decades. Despite the well known fears of bands like Metallica, there are a lot of subtle ways to make it in the music business, and my intent is to spread e-gold tipjars as another one.
I want to jump in on the RIAA's game (and as a middleman, I may charge a lot LESS than the RIAA does, but I'd charge something!) so they're understandably apprehensive about losing the things Courtney Love mentions in http://www.hole.com/speech/ such as "trips to Scores" (a popular NY City topless entertainment club). I think e-gold can be a much more efficient and transparent 'middleman' -- but of course I'm biased as hell.
I want small bands I've never heard of to be able to quit their day- jobs and play music full-time because of what I'm selling, and I'm not going to quit. Other people have said this better than I can, so I'm going to rely on them now.
I would urge everyone reading this to read Courtney's whole rant, even though it goes on for pages...In it, she reveals things like a band declaring bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million(!) earned by their CD sales. Toni Braxton sold $188 million worth of CDs, and went broke because of a contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. We all know what CDs cost, and I'm pretty sure most of us imagine the artists getting a better cut than THAT! Anyway, please go read the whole thing so that you can see from Courtney's math that the examples above are typical. Don't despair, the good part about tipjars is near the end.
Ok, now that you're back, let's get to the fun part and read some online comics about micropayments! First:
Whew. Ok, now look at what Courtney & Scott were both asking for, between the lines! First:
http://www.fastsci.com -- which allows ANYONE, even someone who is VERY non-technical, to set up the e-gold shopping cart. Then:
http://101574.clicktwocents.com/ -- which attempts to get two centigrams (about 19 cents worth, but two cents US is possible, too) donated to me for my long rant. Think to yourself, "I should ask Courtney & Scott to accept e-gold!" They were both asking for this, and Jim just demonstrated it!
Well, I've already asked them, but more voices will have MUCH more of an effect than just mine, so feel free to help me, and thanks for reading. JMR
(Well, looking at my username, this one should come as no shock.)
e-gold has many advantages. I once again offer a small click of the stuff to anyone who replies to my email address with an account number. e-gold Ltd. won't sell/trade/give away your information (because they need it to be accurate).
Now that we have things like http://www.fastsci.com and http://www.clicktwocents.com our shopping cart interface is MUCH easier to use, and recent news indicates that it may be more secure than some other methods of selling things online.
Since e-gold tipjars are (IMNSHO) the ideal musicians' solution to the Napster/RIAA problems, I am hoping that these sites become widely popular, (suggestions welcome)! Thanks. JMR
Yeah, I've seen some of her stuff about that (she doesn't just do ICANN duties, I guess). I used to co-own a thing called the flying rat project, which used e-gold's shopping cart (still not entirely suitable, as it's not just a single click for the AOL-users) for obscuring e-mail addresses to allow email-for-payments. The name was a take-off on a bad joke about pigeons, but the idea itself never took off (even in the dot.bomb-boom! and despite everyone's professed hatred for spam) even though I thought it was a good idea and considered ideas like "Webvan" insane from the git-go!
A similar thing (disclaimer, I have a small financial interest in this, too) is at http://www.clicktwocents.com/ (I'll click you some gold no charge if you want to try it) but it's still too complex for the average user, and not "bearer" like some of the digicash/Chaum/Brands/etc. stuff, so it's only usable if you're actually online.
I have an idea for how one of the major browser companies (or possibly AOL) could do something about killing spam while (in effect) becoming a low-value internet-payment method standard, but I'm not inclined to tell the world about it at the moment, even though (to me) it seems obvious. JMR
(Disclosure: I have greedy, capitalist reasons to want this or something like it.)
I think the answer lies beyond just filtering, and ventures into postage. There's very sexy (well, geek-sexy) thoughtful stuff out there called hashcash that might work, but it's not WORTH anything. I don't want a warm, fuzzy feeling that a spammer's computer ran some useless clock cycles so he can contact me, I want the postage, dammit! (and I don't want my ISP or the government to get it unless they deserve it for some reason, since I'm the one hitting "delete").
How postage would work is another question. I think it's obvious it would have to be "bearer" and easy to read with or without a computer and easy to redeem for other stuff that ultimately gets turned into "real" money (whatever you personally think THAT is...). No, e-gold would NOT work well for the actual postage, but there's stuff like http://www.paymer.com/en/ which might work (I have nothing to do with that company, I just know the founder and think he's smart). JMR (Speaking ONLY for myself, as always!)
Check out www.fastsci.com and www.clicktwocents.com for easy shopping cart uses!
I like the idea of more views if you post things that get modded up, but that's not controversial (and that makes zero money for Rob, who now is getting married, if that means anything). I like my (controversial) idea of selling moderator points, but it provokes a flamewar every time I mention it...There are times I'd pay to moderate a comment up (or down) and I don't think most folks have the money or time to abuse it if it's implemented properly (big if, I know). JMR
PS Needless to say, their "payment options" so far could use some widening, IMO...
Well, there's (I know, subscription, not really micropayment) "XM" Satellite radio out there, and from their ads at least there are 100% commercial free options. (I also know, the web's not radio, or whatever XM is if it's not radio either). I have not tried it yet, but I want to, badly.:)
I'd agree that micropayments are in a way doomed, as nobody likes them, but even if they suck they suck less than nothing at all, and I'm hoping they DO lead to change. I'd prefer to think that many folks would tip good musicians a bit more than a micropayment, and even at substantial cost savings over commercial CDs, the artist makes more. The voluntary nature of tips would hopefully prevent macropayments, too. I know, I'm an idealist!
Besides, commercial CDs do have things going for them, such as paper art, which make them worth something. JMR
Yeah, I make up words. (It's said to be a sign of mental illness, though I feel just fine and think instead that the rest of the world has gone at least half-crazy!). Quintopoly gets my point across while sounding nastier than cartel, but I'd agree; the RIAA quintopoly's really just a cartel, albeit one that strives to make the OPEC cartel look downright pleasant by comparison at times... JMR
Go *around* the RIAA quintopoly. Scott McCloud's cartoons "I Can't Stop Thinking" five and six have some ideas (which for some reason REALLY anger some folks). I have worked for tips before, it's not always the best living, but it pays the rent and tips of a reasonable size are a lot more palatable than overpriced CDs to consumers, and a lot better than nothing for musicians.
Anyway, lots of technology exists that could easily stop the bottleneck that limits feedback between consumers & the music business. I know, because I sell (some of) it for a living... JMR
Is the musicians, as they've yet to find a way to stop paying the vast layers of middlemen to take trips to Scores (as Courtney Love put it, a while back). I have some ideas, but apparently it's a lot more fun to yell and argue and rant and sue each-other as often as possible than it is to listen to Jim Ray about changing the way to get paid/tipped.:(
The middlemen don't give a crap about artists (as long as they still get the perks like trips to Scores, that is). They probably don't like what I say about how inefficient and dumb and "quintopolistic"* the whole system seems. Oh well...
JMR
* yeah, I made up a word to better describe the RIAA. As always, I speak only for me, nobody else would admit to having most of my opinions even if they actually shared 'em!
Interesting. Does the book mention WebVan? I saw that and right away I thought it had to be the least-intelligent waste-0-money I'd ever seen. The margins in the grocery-business SUCK, the good thing about selling (not delivering) food is that people have to eat even in bad times, but WebVan wasn't focussed on pleasing customers and was destined for failure in that marketplace even if times had remained good! At the time (in the middle of the "boom") I was trying to raise capital for a good idea (which is still working, but it's not making me any money). I was amazed at how easily various moronic ideas like WebVan raised HUGE money (I was looking for about 100 thousand dollars or so, certainly no more than 150K!).
Anyway, WebVan (like Beenz & Flooz, but don't get me started...) was obviously going to be an enormous waste of money, from the beginning, and I said so at the time. Nobody listened, and the result has since served shareholders right. One of the things to keep in mind is that the media played favorites depending on who wastes the most money on ads (and to hell with covering anyone who spends what could be ad-money hiring smarter nerds). For an example of this media-coverage phenomenon, see the now-dead "Industry Standard" magazine. I doubt playing favorites based on ad spending died with that phone-book-sized magazine, so it's a good idea to keep it in mind when reading coverage of certain companies, IMO.
JMR
Not only that, but before they made paintball stuff only they also made some REALLY cool guns. One on my want list would be a transferrable.22lr that is a COMPLETE working model of a belt-fed Browning machine gun (including a cute miniature ammo-box for your cloth belts of.22 ammo). These guns were awesome, slightly-expensive-at-the-time, and incredibly well made (just like the Brownings they were modeled on). They actually work, too (I've seen one run). Unfortunatly, they didn't make Tippmann much $$$ so they were discontinued. Now, they're all priced out-of-sight (but I still can *want* one).
JMR
I agree (and I think Scott would, but I'd best not try to speak for anyone but me) that many -- probably most -- artists aren't at all dependent for their livelihoods on their art, but I think what he's trying to say is "if you want more of this stuff, that means I'll have to cut back on the ol' day-job, but somehow I'll still need some scratch." There are also those who argue that artists like DaVinci, Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso, and others should benefit more from their art within their lifetimes, as opposed to estates seeing huge increases in value long after the artist dies.
That means money-to-artists, and money -- for better or worse -- attracts middlemen. I don't think I've implied that artists who make less can't develop their crafts fully, but clearly, if you have to work your art around a 9 to 5 job and someone else can concentrate solely on the art, that someone else is likely to have an advantage in quality & quantity over you. Money may not be the main goal, but it's a goal when you don't have any for a professional artist.
I'd also disagree with your idea that "People painted, sang and made cool things for each other before money was invented." Money's a pretty old concept, especially the yellow stuff. Collecting gold nuggets (nature's art) for a while has made me believe that money probably predates many things. People want them, because nuggets are amazingly beautiful (it's almost a shame mankind makes so many bullion coins and bars with the stuff).
When early man found a nugget, it's almost certain he/she kept it, and later use as trade/barter/art/money/adornment was a natural. It's almost certain that the yellow color and unusual appearance of a pure (mostly) metal in nature (often ocurring along with quartz, which can also be quite beautiful and pure-looking) reminded him/her of the sun, which he/she probably worshipped at the time. Some of the ideas in this paragraph come from conversations I've had with money-artist J.S.G. Boggs who -- like me -- has experienced having very little money.
JMR
By far, the funniest part of "I can't stop talking" is right at the bottom of his page...Ask yourself, is he (unintentionally??) making his target's point, or am I just missing some distinction/difference? (One thing I did like was the reference, when the artist wanted to trigger emotion rather than rational thought, to the filthy yellow metal. Some things never change...)
To become "established" as an artist, you need talent, hard work, and good luck -- in a variety of proportions, and of course life's not fair, but I don't think that saying things like "ugh" work to refute Scott's arguments once reality hits (even if it's not right at the bottom of the page). Just MHO.
JMR
And everybody (most-especially me, to get any self-interest out of the way) wants to be the middleman. The question artists and consumers should be asking themselves is, "what kind of middleman do I want?" The current middleman/men? is what I call a quintopoly (a five-way monopoly) which has survived up to now largely because of the difficulty artists have had in directly reaching their fans through traditional means. The quintopoly is top-heavy with management who are used to (as Courtney Love put it) lots of trips to Scores and other perks. Life for the artists (even when they "make it") is therefore not nearly as lucrative as many imagined before Courtney's rant, which appeared in Salon a while back.
The internet changes (or should change) all that (and yes, I hope that the change will benefit me). How can music consumers make sure that most* of the money that they spend on music goes to actual musicians instead of non-producers? Well, I have a few ideas, but
Slashdot Mirror
No, you reversed USD and AUD here.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/ is a converter.
JMR
And IMO it's not even about their experience with VHS time-shifting and video sales making them more money after they complained, as you correctly pointed out. (Of course, they also get a tax on blank media, still, for some reason...)
I think the real conflict is about control. Control of artists, users, and any possible bottlenecks between them are therefore a GOOD thing, to the RIAA, because that's control and they fear losing control even more than losing money -- even if it would lead to a better product for consumers (or better compensation-levels for musicians, who must also be controlled).
JMR
(My opinions only, nobody else wants 'em anyway.)
It's been done. Ask Google.
and the do-er was harassed & arrested for trying it (your taxe$ at work). Ask him (he can be found at www.goldbarter.com these days, and his name is Jim Davidson).
JMR
I don't think the moon's resources will justify the proposed Chinese effort, but it's a symptom of the failures of central planning (as if we needed another) that they're trying to dictate what the market will be, rather than letting it happen naturally.
IOW, the US government should "stand by" and do nothing (whether they will resist the urge to waste taxe$ in space is another question). Let's look at how space-commerce (the voluntary, non-government-supported kind) is going in the real world, right now:
So far, it's ALL rich people, and all "tourism." 100%! No exceptions!!
This was to be expected, but think ten years (and maybe 100 orders of magnitude cheaper) down the road...Space-tourism is going to evolve toward one thing, and it's a thing that governments (of any sort) don't seem to want to consider:
SEX tourism. Couples are going to want to have intercourse without gravity (and without annoying swimming pools, scuba gear, etc.). Many honeymooners will want to, uh...start out with a bang (sorry! Couldn't resist).
This will happen naturally, I'm sure of it. Ultimately, all this sex will be the main thing supporting science up there, but no central planning bureaucrat (Chinese or US) will anticipate this, it'll just happen. I only wish that I could find some way to make money off my prediction when it comes to pass...
JMR
(My own opinions, nobody else seems to want them.)
The problem is the model is changing and the industry execs don't want to change with it. They are comfortable.
That is one of the problems, and it's a big one, but it's not the only one...
Another problem is that what's currently called "ecommerce" (credit cards are a 1950s-era system, and they were not designed for the internet) takes far too large of a bite out of a $5 payment (which doesn't settle for sure for over a month, even with the big-bite). This bite is especially hard on "little-guys" (assuming they can even GET a merchant account, they'll pay more & be treated worse).
I sell something that can help little guys get around the getting-paid bottleneck simply, and with a far-smaller bite taken out of the payment. The big guys, whose generals are busily fighting the previous war, don't want to think about it yet, of course...
JMR
(My opinions, not any employer's)
Was said to have been sabotage, though nobody will say for sure. I think that hydrogen got an unfair rap as a blimp-fuel-and-filler from that incident (I'm sorry it happened on film, for that reason). Pictures make emotions.
Yes, hydrogen's flammable stuff, but it's lighter than helium and it burns cleanly, so I think blimps should still use it. Yes, there will still be sabotage and terror and all that, but there's no reason not to use hydrogen in lighter-than-air craft, except emotion. IMO.
JMR
I've been saying the same thing (with maybe some gold instead of just green) for years...Artists may say that they like to experiment, and some experiment musically but the entire music business is rather conservative when it comes to circumventing the "ok, how do I get paid for this stuff" bottleneck that's currently controlled by the RIAA, or even thinking about circumventing it. If they could eliminate the bottleneck between consumers with money and artists (and I'd love to help, because being a middleman is quite profitable even if you DON'T grab more than 90% of the loot!) there's no real need for another entity (especially another large one!).
There are plenty of possible revenue streams out there for those willing to think about the problem. Courtney Love's making plenty of lawyers a lot richer, but "sue the record company" as a business-model is not going to get her any more income. The RIAA's generals want to fight the war-before-last, and musicians will eventually find out the hard way how dumb that is, IMO...
JMR
(These opinions are SOLELY mine, nobody else seems to want 'em anyway.)
Directly tip/pay musicians (I've said how ad-infinitum here, so I won't repeat my whole rant now). It's not hard to break the payment-system bottleneck and cut out the middlemen, I've been selling the tools for YEARS...
http://101574.clicktwocents.com tips me with my favorite kind of money if you've got any (and around here, I give the stuff away!) but I have 0 musical talent. The Radiators are quite good, though.
JMR
Some of us have been saying how for quite some time here (I won't repeat my rant, look at previous comments if curious). Suffice it to say, the problem is the bottleneck in the (antiquated, insecure, 1950s) payment system everyone assumes will be their only choice, ever.
JMR
Couldn't RR employ the same automated solutions you mentioned, without reliance on nice people to educate their admittedly clueless customers, or am I missing something?
Of course, the problems won't end until these same clue-impaired people learn how NOT to promiscuously click every unexpected arriving attachment, misconfigure machines, etc., but it still seems like the network owners could more easily detect and squelch something like Code Red.
JMR
(I know, I keep saying this stuff...Now it's a rant).
s t-5.html
s t-6.html
This essay is a work in progress. It's a compilation of various rants of mine. If you have ideas for improvement (or critiques) they'd be welcome.
My saga into the online music controversy began at CFP99 (the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference). A panel with both an RIAA representative and a rap-artist and a few other folks were talking (actually they were mostly shouting!) at/to eachother.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is a very politically-well-connected music distribution cartel, consisting of five major record companies. The rap artist (whose name escapes me) had his own label, but he favored MP3s, too, because his music's popularity had grown in part due to online music trading. To summarize the arguments...
RIAA side:
You're a criminal, an ordinary thief! Taking this information is AGAINST THE LAW, even if you own the album/CD! The person who downloads music is stealing from musicians as much as a person who "pirates" software steals 'warez'!
Unknown Rap-dude's side:
No, you're a corporate shill, feeding enormous layers of middle men (who don't help our fans at all!) piled onto the backs of artists - who have 0 negotiating power against a giant cartel that's as powerful as the RIAA!
Needless to say, the session ended with the panel still arguing, mostly right past eachother. Everyone wanted to talk about the artists and the fans, but if you listened it was all about money even though words like "money" and "payments" were rarely if ever mentioned! A 1950s-era payment system was assumed to be the only alternative to "100% free."
I walked up, handing out business cards and quietly saying, "you know, I might have a solution to all this, it's called e-gold" to both sides, and both sides have been very slowly getting it (no marketing budget to speak of!) ever since! (Well, it's not been quite that bad, but it's close!) Now, I spend a lot of time asking artists to try e-gold, and some new tools have made it easier than ever to use.
One fan has set up http://www.radsfans.net for The Radiators, a very cool bar-band that should be more popular than they are, IMO.
I can understand why the RIAA dislikes the idea of e-gold. They hold onto their middleman position only because of the difficulty artists and fans have traditionally had in directly reaching or paying eachother. Some bands, like the Grateful Dead, thumbed their noses at anti-recording policies for years, though. I don't think Jerry's heirs are suffering now, despite the massive music-trading of recorded Dead shows which has gone on for decades. Despite the well known fears of bands like Metallica, there are a lot of subtle ways to make it in the music business, and my intent is to spread e-gold tipjars as another one.
I want to jump in on the RIAA's game (and as a middleman, I may charge a lot LESS than the RIAA does, but I'd charge something!) so they're understandably apprehensive about losing the things Courtney Love mentions in http://www.hole.com/speech/ such as "trips to Scores" (a popular NY City topless entertainment club). I think e-gold can be a much more efficient and transparent 'middleman' -- but of course I'm biased as hell.
I want small bands I've never heard of to be able to quit their day- jobs and play music full-time because of what I'm selling, and I'm not going to quit. Other people have said this better than I can, so I'm going to rely on them now.
I would urge everyone reading this to read Courtney's whole rant, even though it goes on for pages...In it, she reveals things like a band declaring bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million(!) earned by their CD sales. Toni Braxton sold $188 million worth of CDs, and went broke because of a contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. We all know what CDs cost, and I'm pretty sure most of us imagine the artists getting a better cut than THAT! Anyway, please go read the whole thing so that you can see from Courtney's math that the examples above are typical. Don't despair, the good part about tipjars is near the end.
Ok, now that you're back, let's get to the fun part and read some online comics about micropayments! First:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/ic
and then:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/ic
Whew. Ok, now look at what Courtney & Scott were both asking for, between the lines! First:
http://www.fastsci.com -- which allows ANYONE, even someone who is VERY non-technical, to set up the e-gold shopping cart. Then:
http://101574.clicktwocents.com/ -- which attempts to get two centigrams (about 19 cents worth, but two cents US is possible, too) donated to me for my long rant. Think to yourself, "I should ask Courtney & Scott to accept e-gold!" They were both asking for this, and Jim just demonstrated it!
Well, I've already asked them, but more voices will have MUCH more of an effect than just mine, so feel free to help me, and thanks for reading.
JMR
(Well, looking at my username, this one should come as no shock.)
e-gold has many advantages. I once again offer a small click of the stuff to anyone who replies to my email address with an account number. e-gold Ltd. won't sell/trade/give away your information (because they need it to be accurate).
Now that we have things like http://www.fastsci.com and http://www.clicktwocents.com our shopping cart interface is MUCH easier to use, and recent news indicates that it may be more secure than some other methods of selling things online.
Since e-gold tipjars are (IMNSHO) the ideal musicians' solution to the Napster/RIAA problems, I am hoping that these sites become widely popular, (suggestions welcome)! Thanks.
JMR
Yeah, I've seen some of her stuff about that (she doesn't just do ICANN duties, I guess). I used to co-own a thing called the flying rat project, which used e-gold's shopping cart (still not entirely suitable, as it's not just a single click for the AOL-users) for obscuring e-mail addresses to allow email-for-payments. The name was a take-off on a bad joke about pigeons, but the idea itself never took off (even in the dot.bomb-boom! and despite everyone's professed hatred for spam) even though I thought it was a good idea and considered ideas like "Webvan" insane from the git-go!
A similar thing (disclaimer, I have a small financial interest in this, too) is at http://www.clicktwocents.com/ (I'll click you some gold no charge if you want to try it) but it's still too complex for the average user, and not "bearer" like some of the digicash/Chaum/Brands/etc. stuff, so it's only usable if you're actually online.
I have an idea for how one of the major browser companies (or possibly AOL) could do something about killing spam while (in effect) becoming a low-value internet-payment method standard, but I'm not inclined to tell the world about it at the moment, even though (to me) it seems obvious.
JMR
(Disclosure: I have greedy, capitalist reasons to want this or something like it.)
I think the answer lies beyond just filtering, and ventures into postage. There's very sexy (well, geek-sexy) thoughtful stuff out there called hashcash that might work, but it's not WORTH anything. I don't want a warm, fuzzy feeling that a spammer's computer ran some useless clock cycles so he can contact me, I want the postage, dammit! (and I don't want my ISP or the government to get it unless they deserve it for some reason, since I'm the one hitting "delete").
How postage would work is another question. I think it's obvious it would have to be "bearer" and easy to read with or without a computer and easy to redeem for other stuff that ultimately gets turned into "real" money (whatever you personally think THAT is...). No, e-gold would NOT work well for the actual postage, but there's stuff like http://www.paymer.com/en/ which might work (I have nothing to do with that company, I just know the founder and think he's smart).
JMR
(Speaking ONLY for myself, as always!)
Check out www.fastsci.com and www.clicktwocents.com for easy shopping cart uses!
I like the idea of more views if you post things that get modded up, but that's not controversial (and that makes zero money for Rob, who now is getting married, if that means anything). I like my (controversial) idea of selling moderator points, but it provokes a flamewar every time I mention it...There are times I'd pay to moderate a comment up (or down) and I don't think most folks have the money or time to abuse it if it's implemented properly (big if, I know).
JMR
PS Needless to say, their "payment options" so far could use some widening, IMO...
Well, there's (I know, subscription, not really micropayment) "XM" Satellite radio out there, and from their ads at least there are 100% commercial free options. (I also know, the web's not radio, or whatever XM is if it's not radio either). I have not tried it yet, but I want to, badly. :)
I'd agree that micropayments are in a way doomed, as nobody likes them, but even if they suck they suck less than nothing at all, and I'm hoping they DO lead to change. I'd prefer to think that many folks would tip good musicians a bit more than a micropayment, and even at substantial cost savings over commercial CDs, the artist makes more. The voluntary nature of tips would hopefully prevent macropayments, too. I know, I'm an idealist!
Besides, commercial CDs do have things going for them, such as paper art, which make them worth something.
JMR
Yeah, I make up words. (It's said to be a sign of mental illness, though I feel just fine and think instead that the rest of the world has gone at least half-crazy!). Quintopoly gets my point across while sounding nastier than cartel, but I'd agree; the RIAA quintopoly's really just a cartel, albeit one that strives to make the OPEC cartel look downright pleasant by comparison at times...
JMR
Go *around* the RIAA quintopoly. Scott McCloud's cartoons "I Can't Stop Thinking" five and six have some ideas (which for some reason REALLY anger some folks). I have worked for tips before, it's not always the best living, but it pays the rent and tips of a reasonable size are a lot more palatable than overpriced CDs to consumers, and a lot better than nothing for musicians.
Anyway, lots of technology exists that could easily stop the bottleneck that limits feedback between consumers & the music business. I know, because I sell (some of) it for a living...
JMR
Someone may have beaten me to this, but,
"It can't be stressed enough how important it is to have the shiny side pointing out."
JMR
Speaking exclusively for Jim Ray, YMMV, etc.
Is the musicians, as they've yet to find a way to stop paying the vast layers of middlemen to take trips to Scores (as Courtney Love put it, a while back). I have some ideas, but apparently it's a lot more fun to yell and argue and rant and sue each-other as often as possible than it is to listen to Jim Ray about changing the way to get paid/tipped. :(
The middlemen don't give a crap about artists (as long as they still get the perks like trips to Scores, that is). They probably don't like what I say about how inefficient and dumb and "quintopolistic"* the whole system seems. Oh well...
JMR
* yeah, I made up a word to better describe the RIAA. As always, I speak only for me, nobody else would admit to having most of my opinions even if they actually shared 'em!
Interesting. Does the book mention WebVan? I saw that and right away I thought it had to be the least-intelligent waste-0-money I'd ever seen. The margins in the grocery-business SUCK, the good thing about selling (not delivering) food is that people have to eat even in bad times, but WebVan wasn't focussed on pleasing customers and was destined for failure in that marketplace even if times had remained good! At the time (in the middle of the "boom") I was trying to raise capital for a good idea (which is still working, but it's not making me any money). I was amazed at how easily various moronic ideas like WebVan raised HUGE money (I was looking for about 100 thousand dollars or so, certainly no more than 150K!).
Anyway, WebVan (like Beenz & Flooz, but don't get me started...) was obviously going to be an enormous waste of money, from the beginning, and I said so at the time. Nobody listened, and the result has since served shareholders right. One of the things to keep in mind is that the media played favorites depending on who wastes the most money on ads (and to hell with covering anyone who spends what could be ad-money hiring smarter nerds). For an example of this media-coverage phenomenon, see the now-dead "Industry Standard" magazine. I doubt playing favorites based on ad spending died with that phone-book-sized magazine, so it's a good idea to keep it in mind when reading coverage of certain companies, IMO.
JMR
Not only that, but before they made paintball stuff only they also made some REALLY cool guns. One on my want list would be a transferrable .22lr that is a COMPLETE working model of a belt-fed Browning machine gun (including a cute miniature ammo-box for your cloth belts of .22 ammo). These guns were awesome, slightly-expensive-at-the-time, and incredibly well made (just like the Brownings they were modeled on). They actually work, too (I've seen one run). Unfortunatly, they didn't make Tippmann much $$$ so they were discontinued. Now, they're all priced out-of-sight (but I still can *want* one).
JMR
Interesting comment. I'll try not to be arrogant.
I agree (and I think Scott would, but I'd best not try to speak for anyone but me) that many -- probably most -- artists aren't at all dependent for their livelihoods on their art, but I think what he's trying to say is "if you want more of this stuff, that means I'll have to cut back on the ol' day-job, but somehow I'll still need some scratch." There are also those who argue that artists like DaVinci, Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso, and others should benefit more from their art within their lifetimes, as opposed to estates seeing huge increases in value long after the artist dies.
That means money-to-artists, and money -- for better or worse -- attracts middlemen. I don't think I've implied that artists who make less can't develop their crafts fully, but clearly, if you have to work your art around a 9 to 5 job and someone else can concentrate solely on the art, that someone else is likely to have an advantage in quality & quantity over you. Money may not be the main goal, but it's a goal when you don't have any for a professional artist.
I'd also disagree with your idea that "People painted, sang and made cool things for each other before money was invented." Money's a pretty old concept, especially the yellow stuff. Collecting gold nuggets (nature's art) for a while has made me believe that money probably predates many things. People want them, because nuggets are amazingly beautiful (it's almost a shame mankind makes so many bullion coins and bars with the stuff).
When early man found a nugget, it's almost certain he/she kept it, and later use as trade/barter/art/money/adornment was a natural. It's almost certain that the yellow color and unusual appearance of a pure (mostly) metal in nature (often ocurring along with quartz, which can also be quite beautiful and pure-looking) reminded him/her of the sun, which he/she probably worshipped at the time. Some of the ideas in this paragraph come from conversations I've had with money-artist J.S.G. Boggs who -- like me -- has experienced having very little money.
JMR
By far, the funniest part of "I can't stop talking" is right at the bottom of his page...Ask yourself, is he (unintentionally??) making his target's point, or am I just missing some distinction/difference? (One thing I did like was the reference, when the artist wanted to trigger emotion rather than rational thought, to the filthy yellow metal. Some things never change...)
To become "established" as an artist, you need talent, hard work, and good luck -- in a variety of proportions, and of course life's not fair, but I don't think that saying things like "ugh" work to refute Scott's arguments once reality hits (even if it's not right at the bottom of the page). Just MHO.
JMR
Speaking ONLY for myself!
And everybody (most-especially me, to get any self-interest out of the way) wants to be the middleman. The question artists and consumers should be asking themselves is, "what kind of middleman do I want?" The current middleman/men? is what I call a quintopoly (a five-way monopoly) which has survived up to now largely because of the difficulty artists have had in directly reaching their fans through traditional means. The quintopoly is top-heavy with management who are used to (as Courtney Love put it) lots of trips to Scores and other perks. Life for the artists (even when they "make it") is therefore not nearly as lucrative as many imagined before Courtney's rant, which appeared in Salon a while back.
s t-5.html
s t-6.html
The internet changes (or should change) all that (and yes, I hope that the change will benefit me). How can music consumers make sure that most* of the money that they spend on music goes to actual musicians instead of non-producers? Well, I have a few ideas, but
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/ic
and
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/ic
show some cartoons that explain things visually better than I ever could in this rant. Enjoy.
JMR
* - anyone promising artists "all" the money is probably lying.
Speaking ONLY for myself!!!