Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Drew Wilson and the Science of File Sharing | Main | David Post on Kirtsaeng »

May 22, 2012

AFP on "Where Is All the Money Going?"

Email This Entry

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

Amanda Palmer posted a long (and, as is her way, rambling) blog entry/Kickstarter update addressing the question of "Where All This Kickstarter Money Is Going."

It's short on detail and long on concept, but it's still worth reading as it rattles off the very long list of people and things and responsibilities involved in making a major multi-faceted project come together. As I wrote back in April when I signed up for the Kickstarter, this particular vision of music's future isn't just about a band, an album, a tour. It's about bringing together dozens of creative people each contributing to a multi-faceted, multi-experience endeavor. And that kind of thing doesn't come cheap, even when many (most?) of the people involved are your friends and colleagues who share your vision and dedication.

Everyone needs to eat and artists need to get paid. If I have any criticism of AFP's approach here it's that she's very dedicated to pointing out that even if the Kickstarter clears a million bucks she's not going to get rich off it. That is important, especially when you're asking people up-front to give money and trust they're going to get something worthwhile down the road. As Palmer says, "...paying now for value later is what historically would’ve been a label’s primary purpose."

Since we (the Kickstarter backers) are taking that role, it's important we feel we're getting value for our invested dollars. Fine and good. But I'm very interested in this as a sustainable business model. If Palmer is right and the project looks only to break even then that's not good enough. The Kickstarter becomes an event, not a repeatable model. In my opinion, Palmer and the people who work on this (her band, her artists, etc.) should be making money this way, because art needs to be sustained, not just one-off events, and right now we don't have a better way to sustain art than to compensate directly the creative people involved.

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Interesting People


COMMENTS

1. Neil Gaiman on May 24, 2012 6:18 PM writes...

But the product made in this Kickstarter isn't the end of the production cycle. The CD and the concerts that are part of the Kickstarter are only for Kickstarter supporters, and are unique to that. (They'll also contain things that the thngs for sale to the public wouldn't.)

The Kickstarter exists to fund a CD release (to the public, not Kickstarter supporters) and a tour (ditto). The Kickstarter money funds the studio and promotional costs (just as a record label might have done).

The business model isn't, Make Money From 20,000 people. It's Use 20,000 people to crowdfund the costs of manufacturing and distributing and promoting a CD and a tour to the General Public. And then get rich from that.

You'd think a band who took their video and studio and promotional budget from a record label and used it as income instead of as an investment in their future were shortsighted. That's the Kickstarter money. That's what it's for.

Permalink to Comment

2. Ben Folds on May 24, 2012 7:33 PM writes...

Neil speaks truth. And...
I don't think your average person understands the music business in general, which would be a prerequisite to taking the leap into getting your head around a development like Kickstarter. Also, many believe that music couldn't possibly be real work and therefore shouldn't require compensation. This is bolstered by the current framework where most people don't pay for music. Of course, if we're not having fun to begin with, we've got nothing to sell, so riding that line is difficult enough. I think most get Kickstarter and some people will always feel any innovation is a threat and they'll be very vocal about it.

Permalink to Comment

3. Ben Folds on May 24, 2012 7:42 PM writes...

And to Alan, the current system of the music business is barely a break even business as it stands. We have to give crowdfunding a shake and see. I think it's promising as there is far less likelihood of being 'too big for your britches' - some check and balances. Getting by is the dream - breaking even. Good stuff.

Permalink to Comment

4. Meilin Miranda on May 24, 2012 7:44 PM writes...

I explain it as "front loading" your sales. The Kickstarter is only the beginning. Once the backers have their stuff, it's out there for everyone else--FOREVER. And that's where we make our real money. The thing I hate most about people who misunderstand the KS process (and that does not include the OP) is that it's not begging or even a pledge drive. Both of those are closed; while a KS is finite, what it makes possible is not.

Permalink to Comment

5. Dean on May 24, 2012 7:57 PM writes...

I think the model is sustainable though. It doesn't matter that it's an event. It basically funds Amanda and her team to make music, tour, and do the amazing stuff they want to do for the next 12-18 months. After which, why not do it again? Between buying their albums and going to shows I spend a bunch of money on my favourite artists every year. Giving them that money up-front frankly makes little difference to me.

No, it's not putting money in the bank. But y'know, neither does my job. I make enough money to get by, have a holiday once a year, buy video games and go to music and comedy shows. I don't end up with tons leftover either.

Permalink to Comment

6. Andrew lorien on May 24, 2012 11:11 PM writes...

I make websites for a living. When we pitch for a $500,000 job, the company gets paid a little bit up front, a few progress payments along the way, and a big chunk when we deliver. After paying all of us employees and the rent, the guy who owns the company doesn't get much in the bank - and he could make a loss.
Seems like exactly the same model to me.

Permalink to Comment

7. Jake on May 25, 2012 1:58 AM writes...

This guy REALLY makes websites for a living, guys!

Permalink to Comment

8. Glenn Ford on May 25, 2012 3:59 AM writes...

Many years ago at a gig in Melbourne , I spoke to the lead singer of a band who were touring like there was no tomorrow and he explained to me that they had no choice ,they owed the record company heaps and they wouldn't see a cent until they sold about a 150,000 records and that was a shit load in Australia in 1980s ,1 record 1 tour that was it the band was gone . I see the kickstarter as more of away of allowing me to be a patron of the arts I prefer ,it's like a subscription to the ballet or the opera , I pay upfront for some of the art , I get stuff that a ticket to the show doesn't get you and I pay if I want the gala performance . It is an event , every time the subscription comes around I make a choice ? Do I or don't I

Permalink to Comment

9. Alan Wexelblat on May 25, 2012 8:17 AM writes...

@Andrew: if you don't plan your billing to account for profit I can't help you much. I think that's an error.

@Glenn: I know that touring and particularly touring under the pressure of a major-label pay-back-or-die contract is hard and sucks the life out of many performers. Part of why I want new models to succeed is so we have alternatives to that. The major-label model is still going to work for some acts/artists. But if it remains the only workable/available model then we are in DEEP trouble.

Permalink to Comment

10. Andrew lorien on May 25, 2012 9:46 AM writes...

I make websites for a living. When we pitch for a $500,000 job, the company gets paid a little bit up front, a few progress payments along the way, and a big chunk when we deliver. After paying all of us employees and the rent, the guy who owns the company doesn't get much in the bank - and he could make a loss.
Seems like exactly the same model to me. Start a project, promise some people a flat wage and some activities percentage, find the money, finish the job, hope that you'll be able to do it again.

Permalink to Comment

11. Mary Layton on May 25, 2012 3:38 PM writes...

It's been interesting watching the debate that's developed from the success of Amanda's Kickstarter. I think any sort of artist (I'm a visual one) probably 'gets' the concept - especially musicians and especially ones who've dealt with record companies in the past. However, crowdfunding albums/tours isn't a new idea (Marillion have done it on their own since 1997), it's only that Kickstarter and other sites have made it easier, and more visible. And, as Ben said, the average person won't understand how the music business works traditionally, so it's not easy for them to understand the new tools artists are embracing. Amanda's success makes for an excellent opportunity to educate the fans and let them be involved in the process.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Music Business for 21st Century Independent Artists
Net Neutrality? Still Could Be Kept
Hey, Look, E-Books Still Suck
Makers, Fan Art, Making it Pay
IP Analogy to Physical Property (in Architecture)
That Sound You Hear is the Anti-Neutrality Dam Breaking
Having (Mostly) Failed with Authors, Amazon Makes a Pitch for the Readers
And No Kill Switches, Either