Archive for the ‘Economic Musings’ Category

Network neutrality or bulk rate discount?

Friday, December 5th, 2008

Just read a crazy article trying to inflame people to be against network neutrality. Study: Google uses 21X more bandwidth than it pays for. The study essentially states that Google pays a lot less for its bandwidth than regular Internet users, and uses much more of it. The implication of the story is that because of Net Neutrality, Google isn’t paying its fair share of the costs of the Internet, and the poor ISPs just want to be able to make the biggest companies pay more.

Let’s dissect this a bit.

  • What is Network Neutrality?
  • Why is Google paying less?
  • What are the real costs of the Internet?

What is Network Neutrality?

First of all, Network Neutrality is a political issue related to the fundamental ways we’re charged to use the Internet. The EFF, most software and services companies, and most content providers are in favor of Net Neutrality.

People are charged for connecting to the Internet through a series of ISPs, and the ISPs pay telecommunications companies to connect to the wires and fiber optics that make up the Internet. On the Web, there are always two ends to Internet traffic–the web site you’re visiting, and you. The Internet routes all the traffic between you and the web site. You pay for your connection to the Internet, and the web site owner pays a web host or a data center or an ISP to be connected to the Internet. For every web site you visit, two people pay: you, and the web site owner.

Network Neutrality is an attempt to keep this model of paying for the Internet, essentially by putting a toll booth at the onramp and offramp. Proponents of Network Neutrality (which includes me) think this is enough, and do not want to see other revenue streams going to support the basic wires, because it opens up a huge conflict of interest. Charging for the pipe to your house, charging for the bandwidth you use, these are fair systems for paying for the Internet.

Opponents to Network Neutrality include mostly telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and many others. What they want to change is they want to put surcharges on particular types of traffic. The specific underlying cause for this is VoIP–with the rise of services like Vonage, Skype, and dozens of other VoIP providers have cut into the revenue of the traditional phone companies. So instead of raising fees to ISPs and allowing this traffic to flow unimpeded, they want to preserve their old revenue model, and discriminate against voice traffic that goes over data.

If we looked at this as a highway, with tollbooths at all the on- and off-ramps, the telecom companies would argue that they just want to be able to charge more for semis hauling trailers, so that those activities that take up more space on the road would get charged more than individuals who are just driving a family car. Sounds good, right?

Except that’s not quite what they want to do. To extend our metaphor to fit, we’d need to add a high-speed train that the same companies also run. And then notice that they actually aren’t charging the trucks as much as they’re charging buses or electric cars or any other type of vehicle that might compete with their train service.

Network Neutrality does not prohibit telecom companies from charging whatever they want for traffic through their pipes. All it does is protect them from discriminating arbitrarily against different types of traffic. They could change from their current consumer all-you-can-eat for one monthly rate plan to charge by the GB of traffic, and none of the network neutrality folks would complain. Bigger bandwidth users will pay more for it. That’s neutral. But saying that VoIP, or Bittorrent, or video calling, or instant messaging, or email, should be charged at a different rate than web traffic only serves to protect monopolies and inhibit innovation.

Why is Google paying less?

Quite simply, they pay less per giga-byte of transfer because they’re buying it in huge bulk quantities. Regular home users do not get the best deal per giga-byte of traffic because most buy a flat unlimited plan, and never get close to the capacity they’re actually paying for. Back in the dial-up days, you used to pay more to get more hours online. Now you can be online 24×7, but you’re certainly not using all your bandwidth. That’s why you’re paying a higher rate.

Bandwidth does cost. Popular web sites pay high charges to get enough traffic to their servers, compared to home users. I’m sure Google’s Internet charges are well into the millions of dollars, probably tens of millions. Divided by the giga-byte they’re getting a great deal compared to home users. That is all this study is saying.

What are the real costs of the Internet?

Senator Ted Stevens did get it right in this respect: the Internet is a series of tubes. Think of the water system in any major city: Internet routers are like a pump station. An Internet backbone is like a water main between two pump stations. The copper wires or fiber-optic strands are quite like pipes, although data passes in both directions. As the pipes (the copper) comes out to your house, they get smaller and smaller, capable of carrying less data. Instead of water flowing over the pipes, it’s data, which is really just a tiny amount of precisely regulated pulses of electricity (or light, in the case of fiber). And instead of there being a big reservoir that is the source of the water, the data flows both ways, so all end points can also be the data source.

Creating the Internet took a huge amount of capital investment, to lay the wires and fiber across the country. The telecom companies largely built this system. But once it’s all built, there’s very little cost to operate it–just a relatively small amount of electricity and a bit of maintenance when things break. Extending the Internet to new communities, laying faster fiber to existing places, improving the technology along the way, these are the places your dollars go. That, and into the pockets of the companies that made the initial investment (mostly by piggybacking on the copper and profits of the previous phone system). These companies obviously should be rewarded for making the investment, but now that the infrastructure is largely in place, paying them more doesn’t necessarily result in further benefit to us.

The Internet should be managed like the rest of our infrastructure: our highways, our electrical systems, our water systems, etc. They should be managed like a utility, and not favor some interests over others. If their old business model of landlines is no longer viable, they shouldn’t be allowed to crush more innovative competitors by limiting access to the wires we all need to share.

One of my clients has suggested that phone companies should be split in two, with the part responsible for the actual infrastructure treated like a public utility, granted a monopoly on that infrastructure but not allowed to compete with services that depend on fair access to that infrastructure. It’s the very principle behind the idea of anti-trust, and I think it’s a great approach. What do you think?

Pet Peeve: A**wipes in intersections

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

Ok. Generally I avoid off-color language, but I’ve got yet another rant to get off my chest. And while it’s mostly off-topic for this blog, I promise to connect the dots…

So there I was, walking the dogs home from work. I crossed the Fremont bridge, then down the block to the one major intersection I need to cross, just in time for the walk sign.

But there are cars stopped right in the middle of the crosswalk, underneath the red light. And not just the crosswalk–there were fully 3 cars stopped on the intersection side of the the crosswalk, blocking cross traffic.

The guy parked squarely across the crosswalk shrugged and looked pretty embarrassed as our pack went around behind him. And then I had to walk up between the cars back to the crosswalk, along side some asswipe who had her head totally inside the car doing something or other that apparently was more important than driving or obeying traffic rules.

I rapped on her window as I walked by, and she let out a terrified shriek. Then she started yelliing at me. I was listening to the radio, and really didn’t care what she had to say, so I hollered “you’re in the middle of the intersection.” She rolled down her window to yell something more at me, so I hollered back at her, “you’re in the middle of the f**king intersection!” And continued on into the neighborhood.

Now, I’m usually a very calm, even-tempered guy. You never hear me say things like that. But assholes who think they need to make it through the next light at the expense of everybody who happens to be going the other direction really piss me off.

Don’t get me wrong–I’ve been caught unexpectedly in the intersection when the cars ahead didn’t move as much as I thought they would. And when this happens, I’m very embarrassed, and hyper-aware of everything around me, trying to get out of the way of any pedestrians or other cars I’ve unintentionally blocked. This woman received my moment of wrath because she was startled that I was even there, and couldn’t care less that her selfishness is the kind of thing that causes gridlock and endless traffic jams.

So how does that relate to our topics of open source, computers, business, and economics? A couple ways.

First, there’s the obvious parallel to network congestion. If you’re on a DSL connection, incoming and outgoing traffic have to alternate over the same pair of wires. If you flood the entire connection one way, the other way starts to suffer. For example, if you’re uploading a huge file over a network connection, it can greatly decrease your download speed, much more than you might expect. By keeping your traffic in either direction slightly under the maximum rate, the other direction can continue to flow freely. But if you max out one direction, the other direction suddenly can’t get through, just like lame drivers who block the intersection because they’re too impatient to wait for the next light.

The other point is about selfishness. Ayn Rand wrote some quite influential books. I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a teenager, and they make a very persuasive case that people acting in their own self-interest can help the greater good. This is much of the justification for our current financial system, the whole idea of trickle-down economics that suggest if you do what’s in your interest, you’ll make lots of money and create jobs for others.

But gridlock provides a great counterpoint to this–the selfishness of a couple people who enter the intersection with no where to go can lead to stopping the cross-traffic, which could well be hundreds of other people. The actions of one person trying to get ahead can come at a cost to hundreds of others. The actions and profits of the big businesses that dominate our economy have come at the expense of the rest of us. One relevant economic phrase related to this is the tragedy of the commons.

Car companies: too big to fail, or too big to survive?

Monday, November 24th, 2008

For a time, “economies of scale” meant that the key to success was making a business bigger, and focusing on nothing more than profit. Sell more products however you could, and cut costs as much as possible. This is no longer the case. We’re entering a time when smaller businesses that solve real problems can be profitable, and the former behemoths are becoming dinosaurs.

The past

The assembly line was the key innovation of the auto industry, that famous invention of Henry Ford. By creating stations where each person did one thing, and moving the products past the people, it was possible to crank out thousands and then millions of mostly identical cars. As robotics came along, it was possible to remove people and reduce payroll. As globalization grew, it was possible to find places where the people you did need to employ cost less.

Who did this system benefit? For a while, it benefited auto workers, once the unions were in place to provide basic protections that limited repetitive stress injuries and guaranteed living wages. It definitely benefited owners of the car companies, at least the ones that survived to be bought by one of the big 3. It benefited the shareholders of the big 3, which for a time included in some small part much of the American middle class, along with many retirement funds more recently. And it brought cars and a whole car culture to several generations of Americans.

But there are many, many costs we’ve paid as a society for this. Many American cities had streetcar or rail systems in the 1920s and 1930s that were dismantled with the rise of the automobile. While some argue that streetcars were slow and inefficient compared to cars, many point to GM buying up the streetcar systems and dismantling them. And I have yet to see any accounting for the mass subsidization of the car system we’ve made over the years, the cost of paving the millions of miles of roads and parking lots, the gas distribution networks, or health issues related to air pollution. That’s not to mention the opportunity cost of dedicating all that land to our cars.

The number of people benefiting from the car companies is quickly declining through off-shoring and automation. Worse, for decades, the Big 3 have been buying up competitors and burying innovation. Rather than compete with its more lucrative mainstream cars, GM killed its early electric car program. Big car companies need to do a lot to maintain their monopoly. Big unions have arisen to provide some protection for the labor these companies needed. Big oil is perhaps the biggest benefiter of the auto industry, as it’s been for decades. But the effect of all of this bigness is funneling dollars from the mass middle-class to a tiny group of owners of these companies.

The present

The car companies are saying that if you account for all the parts suppliers and other companies that depend on the big 3 for revenue, they’re responsible for nearly 10% of our economy. But there’s some false logic here. First of all, if the big 3 go under, we’re not going to stop driving. It won’t take down the entire industry–we do love our cars. What it will do is create a big vacuum in the marketplace that will open it up to hundreds of innovative startups, giving them a much bigger opportunity to succeed.

If the big car companies fail, there will be a lot of talented people who know how to make cars looking for work, and many of them probably have some brilliant ideas to make them better. I think we’d see a renaissance in the car industry, with many companies going out of business but a lot more starting up to take their place. The old car industry has long been complacent, relying on heavy marketing to make their outdated business model keep running. And it worked, for a surprisingly long time.

The problem is, the assembly line is obsolete. It appeared during a period when talent was scarce, and raw materials plentiful. So big car companies got big by doing what they could to produce more with less people. Much of our business world has the idea that you make more money by replacing jobs that take skill with jobs that do not. Make the process smart, and make it so you can put a trained monkey (or robot) in a position so you can reduce your cost and make more money.

Unions stand in the way of this, protecting workers’ pay while their jobs become ever less. So these workers, their pensions, and their health-care benefits become a huge cost for the American car companies, compared to foreign companies that do not need to pay for these costs. Yet ironically, by paying decent wages, these companies also create people who have money to buy their products.

Here’s the real reason we’re in a recession and facing even worse: our entire business system that has been built on maximizing profits has worked so effectively in funneling capital to the wealthiest and away from our middle class, that the vast numbers of Americans can no longer afford to make the purchases that keep our economy running. We’re quickly becoming share-croppers in a neo-feudalistic world, slaves to our wages that effectively dwindle against rising health-care costs, mortgages that are 10 times as much as our parents, and fuel costs that have only diminished because nobody can afford to buy anything.

Who needs a bailout?

Now, I’m not suggesting we do nothing. If the big auto companies go out of business, there will be a lot of people out of work, with no safety net to keep them afloat. We pride ourselves on being a place where anybody can start up a business and potentially do really well–but the reality is, this is really hard to do in an environment where your potential customers aren’t buying anything.

I do think we need a bailout. I just think that rescuing the car companies is not who to bail out. We need to soften the landing of the hundreds of thousands of people who may find themselves suddenly out of work, and we need to figure out how to get capital in the hands of new entrepreneurs who can put these people back to work. The car companies have proven they’re not the ones with any sort of vision for the future, so they need to die now.

Right now, the barriers to creating a new business are steep. Very few people understand everything that’s involved in starting up a business, but most understand that the stakes are high if you have no other source of income. Many, if not most, successful businesses are started by people who have saved up a good amount of seed capital, or have spouses with a stable income, or by those who have done it before and have connections. Without money or connections, it’s extremely difficult to start a business.

I think we need a national program to help match engineers with business people and ideas, and provide seed money to get them launched.

There’s a few nascent events in Seattle along these lines: 6-hour startups, startup weekends, and the like put smart people in the same room and let them see if they can develop some sort of web site with business potential. We need this kind of thing expanded to include more than just software people, and also provide some financial backing to see if they can get running.

This is basically the role of venture capital, but the biggest problem with venture funds is that their timelines are too short–they expect a profitable exit event within a few years, and won’t necessarily fund something that isn’t designed to make a huge profit in a short amount of time.

Some of the work of the Small Business Administration and the Small Business Development Centers is admirable in this area–the problem is, not enough people know about these programs, and far too few engage with them. I think a large part of this is fear of losing health-care benefits, retirement plans, and other benefits that large companies provide at a huge advantage to smaller companies.

America has a huge mythos built on top of the entrepreneur, but very few people who actually become entrepreneurs. We would do far better to provide a social safety net for people out trying to start new ventures, making sure they have healthcare and other basic needs covered, along with the tools they need to figure out how to grow and thrive, than to bail out the decadent dinosaurs.

The Future

As bleak as the current financial system and business climate appears to be, there’s a ton of opportunity for real change. But we need to re-align our business value system to make this happen. Here are three specific mental adjustments the business world needs to make.

First of all, we need to recognize that people are our most valuable asset. Where businesses used to do everything possible to make people interchangeable cogs in a vast machine, to succeed in the future they’ll need to use perhaps our biggest untapped resource: our brainpower. To succeed, a business needs to find smart people who haven’t had their sense of initiative crushed by working in large businesses, and give them tools and encouragement to solve real problems. Rather than the cynical marketing to the lowest common denominator and appealing to “Joe Sixpack” as the average American, we need to recognize the genius in our neighbors and ourselves. We can be so much more.

Secondly, we must recognize that we are in a dire position, and need to work together to survive. It’s human nature to adopt an “us versus them” mentality. We’ve always separated people into our friends and our enemies. Nothing unites a people like a shared enemy. For a brief time, 9/11 brought Americans, and much of the world, together in shared suffering. In the large businesses of the world, success is measured by your sales compared to your competition. In the Cold War, nearly the entire planet was divided into the Free World versus the Communist world. But during all of this, we’ve been dumping waste into all the natural systems that support our very lives. We’ve been increasing the temperature of the planet by pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, causing galloping glaciers in Greenland and drowning cities. We’ve been poisoning our rivers and streams. We’ve been decimating entire fisheries at alarming rates, killing the great sources of our food. We’ve created rivers of garbage floating around in the middle of the oceans. And we’ve drawn down every natural resource available to us as if there was no tomorrow — soil levels, water levels, oil levels, all being consumed to give us an unreasonable standard of living. If we don’t start addressing these problems quickly, we won’t have a tomorrow.

We need to focus our energy on solving these problems, because they threaten our very existence. Our human enemies are mainly just the people who are unlucky enough to be faced with these problems first. It’s time to set aside our differences and get to work creating a place where our grandchildren can live.

Finally, we need to harness all the efficiency and productivity that technology provides, and focus that on solving real problems. Computers can automate many menial tasks. Large businesses have used technology to cut costs. In most cases, “costs” equals payroll–you save money by cutting jobs. But if our talent is our most valuable asset, it makes no sense to get rid of them. Instead, we need to take those assets and put them more directly to work on projects they’re best suited to handle.

The rise of agriculture meant that more people did not have to spend their lives finding sustenance–people who farmed created more food than they consumed, which led to the rise of towns. Industrialization further centralized our economy into big cities, and centralized wealth into the hands of a few. Now the Internet and open source is changing everything, providing a decentralized model that completely levels the playing field–individuals with no prior connections can become as influential as centuries-old institutions. We no longer need to be dependent on big economics, big corporations, big publishing houses–we now have the tools to build small local economies. Innovation is done by individuals. Small companies with smart people can displace the old dinosaurs. We need to teach people to be smart, and encourage innovation–not teach them to be dumb, staying mute in the face of rigid hierarchies of corporations.

Let the dinosaurs die, and let’s get on with solving our real problems.

Socialism, individualism, and open source

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

I just heard a Republican pundit on the radio talking about how Republicans are supposed to stand for individual efforts over taking care of others, and small government rather than large. He posited that Republicans had lost the election because they hadn’t adhered to these core values.

A colleague who sounds a bit upset at last week’s results twittered a link to a blog post that accuses us of being “sheeple”, and going down the path of socialism, and apparently the author believes this will cause our country to collapse. The tail end of the McCain/Palin campaign hurled the Socialism epithet as well. Other colleagues have been sending cartoons of trick-or-treaters collecting candy on behalf of their friends who are “too lazy” to trick-or-treat.

There must be some fundamental difference in the way people see the world. I hear these things, and several thoughts come to mind: (warning: long, rambling unedited rant ahead)

  • We’re facing some awfully large problems. Sub-par health-care system. Failing education system. Crumbling transportation infrastructure built around gas-guzzling cars as the cost of oil goes up. Failure of the free market to regulate itself. It strikes me that these are all problems we need to solve together, not leave to the laissez-faire system we’ve had that have rigged the playing field towards the rich, redistributing our country’s wealth to the very top.
  • Why does the word Socialism have such negative connotations for the right wing? Is it just because it was part of the USSR’s name? Most of Europe has socialist programs in place, resulting in much better health coverage and a social safety net to help reduce homelessness.
  • The word “lazy” is used as a broad brush to dismiss the efforts of anybody who hasn’t reached some level of success, often by people who are struggling themselves. I’d argue that people at the bottom of the pay scale, working 2 minimum-wage jobs and barely scraping by, are anything but lazy. Opportunity is capricious, and not evenly distributed.
  • Open Source provides a proof-of-concept that illustrates that we’re better off working together to solve our problems, rather than keeping our solutions close to our chest and not sharing with our neighbors.

Us versus them

Our country was founded with a common enemy. For many people, it seems that patriotism depends upon having an external enemy. First the Brits. More recently, the Nazis and Japan, and then the Soviet Union. Now, it’s terrorism, along with illegal immigrants.

But Franklin Roosevelt, at his inauguration in the midst of the Great Depression, famously said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” And indeed, that is exactly what we fear today–terror. We’ve declared war on it, to the detriment of our civil rights and our moral standing in the world.

I think many people have transferred their fear and uncertainty of their own economic circumstances to this external threat of terrorism. But our real enemy, both here and abroad, is poverty and an unwillingness to work together in the face of much larger looming disasters, such as peak oil, climate change, water and energy shortages, overpopulation, mass extinctions. Instead of dealing with these issues, we’re blaming others for our problems.

I fail to see how the problems we face in the world are all because of terrorists, Democrats, or lazy people. I would argue we have terrorists because we have poverty, and hugely imbalanced distribution of wealth. If we don’t deal with those issues, we’ll surely see more terrorism in the future.

The individualist end game

Time is running out on many fronts. The sheer size of our population is putting a strain on the natural systems of our planet on which we’re completely dependent. Yet we squabble on how to divide up the planet, and those who play the dirtiest have long been winning.

In economics, there’s a distinction made between rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources. Rivalrous resources are those that can only be used by one person at any given time. Non-rivalrous resources are generally things that can be used by many at the same time. For example, my backpack is rivalrous–if you take it from me, I don’t have it anymore. A song is non-rivalrous–I can sing “Happy Birthday” without taking that away from you. Or at least, I should be able to…

In our current economic system, we have made more and more things rivalrous, at least in our legal system. We have carved up our land and made the vast majority of it private. We have granted patents on our very genes. We have allowed corporations to claim ownership of drinking water and charge people for access. We have companies whose sole purpose is to own a patent portfolio and make money off the use of ideas, whether or not other people came up with the same idea independently.

If you’re an individualist, you might see these things as capitalism at work, and the way it should be. But this is really a short-sighted view. Taken to the ultimate result of more and more people fighting over less and less, and you end up with situations like Rwanda in the 90s. According to Jared Diamond, one of the biggest factors leading up to the genocide was population-pressure–the population density had reached a level not seen anywhere else in Africa. Sons were fighting over postage-stamp lots of land to have something they could grow food on, as fathers divided the land into ever smaller bits. There were no shared spaces left, no mental buffers, not enough land to support the people. The rate we’re exhausting our planet’s resources, we risk a similar fate.

We’ve been steadily turning our common wealth into private wealth, redistributing wealth to a tiny few, leaving not enough for everybody else. We’ve been spending resources like oil that have taken millions of years to accumulate in a few generations, polluting our seas and soils, shipping our waste anywhere out of sight, and seeing all of this as somebody else’s problems.

Our country was founded on the principles of working together in the face of a common enemy. Ben Franklin is full of relevant quotes: “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” The biggest problem is that while these big companies take, take, take from our environment and people all to maximize their own profits, they’re stealing the resources everybody else will need in the long run, and socializing the true costs of them doing business.

Scarcity versus abundance

Ironically, the way out of this mess is to change perspectives and realize we really are blessed with tremendous resources. Among the largest, most under-utilized resource we’ve got are millions of smart people locked up doing menial work as cogs in the machinery of these big corporations. We’ve largely moved slavery out of agriculture into minimum-wage jobs across the country, and lower-wage jobs abroad. The term “wage slave” is not far off the mark. Prices of everything has been spiraling up while wages have flat-lined. In the past generation, the cost of buying a house has gone up by a factor of ten, while wages have doubled. Yet more people have bought houses than ever before, and we now see that it was mostly on borrowed money they couldn’t possibly pay back.

You hear the right wing complaining about big government, and how liberal policies reward people for not working. Our policies say a lot about what we value, and just about every decision congress makes benefits some people while penalizing others. We need to get a lot more strategic about our policy-making, and align those policies to address the big problems we’re facing–a health care crisis, global warming, deforestation, peak oil, the financial crisis, and more. If our most abundant under-utilized resource is brainpower, let’s make some policy changes that rewards using those resources, while penalizing the use of the natural resources we’re quickly exhausting.

We need to find ways of penalizing companies that consume natural resources and burden our systems with waste. We need to find ways of rewarding smart, responsible people and companies who help reduce waste in the system.

So how do we make this happen?

Let’s go back to the basics. What does everybody need? Food and shelter, obviously. Today, health-care needs to be a right–we’re a wealthy enough country that it’s absurd people have to choose between food and medication they need to treat and prevent a health issue. Beyond that, people need opportunity, and motivation. For far too long, our policy has been to motivate through fear. Make people afraid they won’t have enough food or have a place to live, and they’ll do drudgery work to avoid that. But it’s hard to give creativity free reign when you’re trying to scrape together the basic things you need to survive. Too many of our people are in exactly that position. And we need their help solving the bigger problems.

In fact, some of our biggest problems are caused by exactly this issue–people not having adequate food or shelter. Terrorists come from places where the future is bleak, where people aren’t secure that they’ll have a safe place to live and enough to eat, let alone make any positive contributions. But there’s always an opportunity to be destructive if your situation is dire.

Now, as much as I’ve been railing against big business, I do think business is the answer. We need to re-align our policies to favor small businesses, and lots of them, to power our way through this mess. Small businesses need to be part of their communities–they can’t just take their jobs to the lowest bidder. Small businesses are much more entrenched in location, and able to make contributions to help their communities. Small businesses provide jobs, solve multiple problems, and are able to think about things beyond merely satisfying their shareholders’ greed–they are able to optimize their business to fit in their part of the economic ecosystem, rather than doing whatever it takes to maximize profits. And small businesses succeed by recognizing that others need to succeed too.

The current barriers to people creating small entrepreneurial businesses that solve real problems are many:

  • A workforce trained to be wage slaves, rather than thinking, and making decisions, for themselves.
  • Crushing costs of doing business: payroll taxes, health care, business operational overhead that is a high cost of doing business.
  • Lack of knowledge/experience in creating a business. Very few people who start a business have done it before, and until you’ve started a business, it’s hard to understand the magnitude of the task.
  • Money. It takes money to get started. It takes money to hire people, provide training, lease space, buy equipment, get insurance, handle bookkeeping and taxes, and obtain licenses, let alone buy the raw materials that become your product.
  • Time management. If you’re a service business, you need to have enough billable hours to cover your costs and make a profit. If you’re a product business, you need to create or manage your products. You need to devote some of your time to marketing and sales before you make any money at all. You need to divide your time effectively between doing the stuff you get paid for, letting the world know you exist, developing the key relationships with partners and vendors and customers, and handling all the little stuff that needs to get done to keep the business running.

The bottom line is, nobody can do all of this alone. To succeed in business, you need help, and lots of it. You need customers who will spread the good word. You need vendors to help with all the operational aspects of your business. You need employees to do the actual work of your business. You need competitors to prove to the marketplace that your product or service is valuable.

So that’s a very long-winded way to get to the point that the vast majority of businesses do not have a monopoly on their product, and do not need “Intellectual Property” (IP) protection to be successful.

Venture Capitalists are always looking for IP: patents, copyrights, trade secrets, or some element that gives a company an advantage over every other potential competitor in the market. They need this because the venture system is based on home runs–they expect that out of 10 businesses, 7 will fail, 2 may break even, and 1 will be successful enough to cover the losses of the other businesses. They don’t know which business will be that home run, so they’re going to invest in the businesses they think stand the best chance.

I’ve spoken with hundreds of people who think their idea is unique, and they don’t want to tell you about it because you might steal it and make a ton of money–or at least be a competitor. The problem is, there are lots of good ideas, and many people come up with very similar ideas independently–the real shortage is the talent to execute those ideas, turn them into a viable business.

One of my biggest challenges as an early open source solution provider was having my potential customers take my solutions seriously. After all, if the software is free, how can it be any good? And if it avoids vendor lock-in, why am I the only one proposing it while they’ve got a dozen vendors pitching Microsoft or Intuit solutions?

While the idea behind my business is wide open, and there’s no prohibitive barrier to competitors setting up shop and doing exactly the same thing, our business is succeeding on execution, on the talent of my employees. It doesn’t matter what your idea is–what matters is whether you can bring it to market.

Systems thinking

To wrap this long meandering post up, we can no longer afford to run businesses that maximize a single factor (profit) at the expense of everything else (people, environment, waste, the future). We need to start optimizing for all critical factors. Our products and businesses need to account for the full impact of what we’re doing, and if it doesn’t make the world a better place in some small way, it shouldn’t continue to exist.

Businesses don’t exist in a vacuum. Businesses can serve a highly constructive role in our society, and help address all of the major challenges we face. But we need to adopt the Unix architecture, create them as small pieces loosely joined, not big monolithic monsters that crush everything in their path.

On taxes and barstool economics

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

A friend of mine posted a story on Facebook that purports to explain income taxes, with beer. This led to a long discussion largely in support of its conservative message. I’ve found it on a few forums, purportedly by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia. Here it is:

Our Tax System, Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily bee r by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same percent, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The n inth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Ok. There are several problems with this.

The first problem, when you try to apply it to the national tax system, is that the bartender isn’t giving anybody a break. Instead, he’s increasing his rates. And we’re all demanding tax relief in the face of increased spending! So who’s paying for the extra $700Bn bailout, or the $600Bn+ we’ve spent in Iraq? If our government were indeed shrinking, this might be an apt metaphor–but it’s not. It’s growing. The question isn’t “how do we split the savings fairly,” it’s “who should pay for the increased cost?”

Secondly, where would the rich guy go drink? Of the developed countries, we have some of the most advantageous arrangements out there for the wealthy. Much of Europe has a more socialist system, and tax higher incomes much more than we do. China? You run the risk of being nationalized. I guess India might be a good place, if you really wanted to be a cheapskate and keep your relative wealth intact. Or Dubai.

A counterpoint

What we choose to tax says a lot about who we are and what we value. Our income tax system is progressive, because it taxes higher incomes at a higher rate, and below a certain level, there’s no tax at all. A Sales tax isn’t particularly progressive or regressive–it just taxes consumption, which in this age of waste probably isn’t a bad thing. A lottery is regressive, since lower income people tend to see them as their only path to success.

But there are other taxes that have a much bigger impact on our society than these. Payroll taxes are regressive, since they tax up to a certain level, and then no more. Business and Occupation taxes (which we have here in Washington) penalize small businesses that do not encompass their entire supply chain under a single corporate entity. Capital Gains taxes tax profits realized from changes in the value of something over the time you’ve owned it.

I’d argue that Washington State has a strong economy in spite of its tax policy, not because of it. Our strong economy is due to our abundance of natural resources such as hydro-power, agriculture, and natural beauty that makes it a place creative and entrepreneurial people want to live.

So what would I do? I’d look at the larger system, and the larger problems we face. We have a lot of unemployed/underemployed people. It’s very expensive to hire people, because of payroll taxes and the heavy burden of health insurance. Instead of taxing those things, we should eliminate the payroll tax and make it easier for businesses to hire good people. And provide health care to lower the burden on our businesses, and good education so that we have talent worthy of hiring. The current system is stacked in favor of large corporations who have the margins to support funding these things–but these same corporations have shown no sense of responsibility in doing so, and would sooner chase lower wages anywhere else in the world to improve their bottom line.

We also are facing major climate issues, national insecurity due to dependence on foreign oil, and congested traffic. All of these issues would be helped with a strong consumption tax on oil. We have a gas tax, but it’s nowhere near enough to encourage people to get out of their cars. Forget cap and trade policies–we need a carbon tax.

So I’d probably keep the current sales and income taxes, but change the tax policy away from penalizing those who provide good jobs here, and towards those who consume, exploit, and waste our natural resources.

Random thoughts on OSCON08

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

This week I’m at the Open Source Convention in Portland, aka OSCON. First impression, before showing up: it seems all focused on big business. Big ticket price. Lots of enterprise-related topics, and sponsors. Not really the meeting of geniuses and thought leaders as years past–or so I thought.

Second impression: Tim O’Reilly asking Brian Aker and Monty Widenius about the importance of various proprietary companies: Sun, Adobe, Microsoft. Their answer to Microsoft? Irrelevant. And Tim came back apologizing to the Microsoft sponsors. This just after the presentation that talked about the open source “tribe”, and introducing Tim as the leader of the cult. Was feeling a bit like I may have made a mistake, plopping down cold hard cash to support the cult of O’Reilly.

Fortunately, that thought was momentary. The rest of the event has been extremely rewarding, and very worthwhile.

At home, in my usual networks, I’m the token Linux guy. Beyond our company and some family I’ve converted to Linux, almost none of my friends use open source, and in business circles, I’m the resource for not just Linux, but web technologies, programming, system administration, and most anything computer related. I come to OSCON and I’m a mere end user, still damp behind the ears. There is true genius wandering the convention center. And suddenly, I’m one of the least technical people in the room, though still listened to for my experience trying to bring these projects to the small business world, identifying pitfalls and areas for improvement.

A few years back, I came to OSCON and it seemed that the worse dressed a person was, the higher up in the ranks of alpha geek he was. This year people looked much more presentable. That might be as far as the influence of corporate culture went.

I met R0ml at that previous OSCON I attended, at a BOF session led by Doc Searls. A “BOF”, if you’re not familiar with software conferences, is a “Birds of a Feather”, a mini, informal discussion about a particular topic led by anybody who puts an idea for one up on a bulletin board. I doubt R0ml remembers me, but it was an interesting discussion we had that evening that paralleled his talk today about elevating open source development from the realm of Techne to Praxis–from mere “making” of stuff to “doing” something to influence and lead people. He took issue with the assertion in an earlier keynote about Franklin and Jefferson being our founding geeks–mainly because while everybody needs a geek these days to make computers do their bidding, that’s a useful, technical, thing that puts us squarely in the realm of Techne. What Jefferson and Franklin really were, according to R0ml, were Polymaths, and that is also a better description of open source practitioners. We’re Renaissance people.

More later…

What’s git, and why do you use it?

Monday, June 30th, 2008

At Freelock, we’re always trying to figure out ways to do things better. Recently I started digging into a developer tool that’s making, as Bryan over at the Linux Action Show would say, my head explode.

For a long time, we’ve managed our custom code projects and business documents in a central repository, called Subversion (also known as svn). Subversion is relatively easy to understand–it’s like having a library of files you can check a copy out of, do some work on it, and then check it back in. Subversion is the librarian that tracks who has copies of what, and when they checked it out. So if Erik checks in changes to a brochure, and then Jill goes to submit changes to the same document, Subversion will say “hey wait a minute, that document has already been changed–you need to make sure you put Erik’s changes in your document before I’ll let you put in your document.”

This is great for managing conflicts between people working on a single team, or for code that is being developed in relative isolation from the rest of the world.

The problem is, we’re doing more than that–we’re taking code from various open source projects and either customizing it or building new applications on top of it. And so when the outside projects get updated, we need to manually update anything we’ve written that depends on that code. There is no longer a single repository where we control our code–there is our code library, plus another one for every project we use.

This makes managing add-ons for projects like Joomla or ZenCart quite challenging, because our add-ons get scattered throughout the filesystem to be able to hook into the right place. And if we have to touch a core file, we’re going to end up needing to re-implement our change with any update to that core file.

There are other issues we run into, managing our code and hosting, all of which take fairly time-consuming, manual intervention. Here’s the list:

  • Since we host and provide security updates for Joomla, Word Press, Zen Cart, Drupal, and others, we need to upgrade dozens of installations any time there’s a new release that has a fix for a security vulnerability. With Joomla this has happened quite a lot, and every Joomla installation needs to be upgraded individually–and tested. And since each installation is slightly different, we can’t manage them easily within a single repository, while updating the underlying code.
  • Templates, modules, components, blocks, themes, plugins, and whatever. Developing these types of add-ons are our bread-and-butter. But code for these often get scattered across an installation, making it quite difficult to manage just our add-ons while we develop them, or roll back to earlier versions if there’s a problem.
  • The Dojo Toolkit, and builds. We’re doing a lot of development with Dojo right now, to add desktop-like functionality such as trees, sortable tables, right-click menus, animations, and lots of other really cool things. However, if you don’t “build” the code after you write it, it’s painfully slow in a web browser. And due to the nature of how Subversion works, you can’t easily store a built Dojo tree if you ever want to change it again. Which means you’d need to build it every place you deploy it. And on some computers, it can take a long time to build–on our demo server, one of our projects currently takes 8 minutes.
  • As we get more directly involved with open source projects like LedgerSMB, we’re finding the need to change core files while we hack away at some particular feature. To do this, you create a branch of the code, work on your feature, and then merge your changes back into the “trunk.” If you don’t have access to save directly to the project repository, doing this gets a lot more complicated.

Git to the rescue. Git solves all of these issues. Read on for a technical discussion of how.
(more…)

The EU crashes Microsoft’s party

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

A couple weeks ago, the EU slapped Microsoft with a $1.35B fine, less than a week after Microsoft had made a big fanfare about their new “open” policies.

Todd over at Napera asks,

Certainly the terms Microsoft has been offering companies since the EU decision in October 2007 are extremely reasonable. Given Microsoft’s new open protocol documentation and their patent pledge for open source developers, what’s not to like?

I haven’t seen any pundits or commentators in the US defending the EU decision. If they are, what are their substantive points?
Napera Networks » The EU crashes Microsoft’s party

Hmm. Let me see if I can shed some light…

First of all, Microsoft wants you to believe that open source developers are all a bunch of hobbyists creating code for no pay. Their recent pledge is to not sue open source developers developing non-commercial systems.

Boy, what a deal that is… Microsoft gets all this open source development for free, right? And they can still charge anybody who dares to compete with them commercially? Great deal–for Microsoft.

The reality is, a great number of open source developers engage in commercial activity. Many successful open source projects are backed by commercial companies. OpenOffice.org, JBoss, SugarCRM, MySQL, PHP, the list goes on. By definition, open source means you can use and redistribute software for any reason, including commercial activity–by excluding commercial entities from patent protection, Microsoft is making a marketing play without making any real concession.

Their real agenda here is to give the illusion of openness so they can get their OOXML format approved as an open standard, without giving up any control over the format. Never mind that they were part of the committee developing the ODF standard and didn’t bother to contribute. Microsoft has no interest in working with other companies to develop an open standard–they want to be proclaimed the standard so they can demand “reasonable royalties” from everyone else, and all the rest of this is just marketing spin to try to put one past the EU, who so far have managed to see through all this bull.

Secondly, Microsoft seems to think the only healthy software marketplace is one that revolves around it. It got where it is by using all sorts of unethical, hardball business practices to drive its competition out of business. This is classic anti-competitive behavior, and is the reason it’s been the target of so many actions.

Microsoft has built a large ecosystem of developers and service providers all gathered around the MS stack. Yet you look at the stack and there’s not all that much vibrant activity, at least not compared to the open source bazaar. Take content management systems as an example. In the Microsoft world, you’ve got Sharepoint. You’ve got a couple of ASP.net open source projects like Dot Net Nuke. And that’s about it.

On the open source side, you’ve got overwhelming choice, and some of them quite great. Instead of one size fits all, you can go shopping for just the features you need, and get it all for a great price–free, if you have the technical ability to make them work. Joomla, Drupal, Plone, MediaWiki, Typo3, Postnuke, Word Press, Serendipity, several hundred different options for you to choose from. Which looks like a more vibrant marketplace, with more competition and more choice?

Ah, but then you ask about standards–isn’t it great that Microsoft makes it so simple for you to do what you need to do? You don’t have to make all those choices. Soviet bakeries were so much better than American supermarkets, too, huh?

Oh, but wait. Who invented http, rss, the world wide web, email, the spreadsheet, the database, the word processor, or anything else we use our computers for? Hint: not Microsoft. And the first few things in that list were created in universities and other open source, collaborative environments.

Finally, to speak directly to the EU’s decision, how does letting Microsoft get away with their monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior help the EU in any way? By protecting their software industry from Microsoft, they’re fostering an environment that can lead to a much more competitive, fertile ground to grow their own software industry.

No other industry (other than possibly the utility companies and the railroads) have had a single company that so dominates the industry like Microsoft dominates software. How can that be a good thing? I know from personal experience a half a dozen companies that Microsoft crushed, and for the most part their technology with them. This mono-culture of software has led to all the trouble with spyware and botnets and through them, spam. I don’t think we’re better off with our Redmond overlords.

I for one was happy to hear about the EU’s decision, glad they were able to stand up against monopolistic practices and do something to actually help their software industry thrive.

On Vendor Lock-in

Saturday, January 19th, 2008

I was listening to the latest episode of LugRadio the other day, and they had a discussion on vendor lock-in by open source distribution companies. I think they missed the point about vendor lock-in: that it locks users into a particular vendor, usually through some means that makes it hard to switch to a better solution later. So I wrote up a reply to send to them that I’m posting below, slightly edited. There is also an ongoing conversation about the topic at the LugRadio forum, and I see several posters are making the same points that I do here.

Open source business is the antithesis of vendor lock-in. Vendor Lock-in is when a vendor uses some sneaky, underhanded, unadvertised method to make it impossible to recover any of your original investment if you ever decide to go with a different system. Vendor lock-in is accomplished by using all the dirty tactics the proprietary software world has used for ages–closed systems that lock away your data, hidden undocumented features, patents, and sneaky licenses.

What you described on the show was not vendor lock-in. It’s called healthy competition, and it’s how open source software innovates. How is optimizing your client OS to work with your server OS vendor lock-in, if anybody else can see what you’re doing and do the same thing? Furthermore, how is it different than competition between KDE and Gnome, or vi and emacs, or any other of the many long-term competitions in the open source world?

Any distribution that is not looking for ways to improve their users’ experience is on the fast track to irrelevance. Take a look at some recent examples you should’ve used in your discussion:

* Xgl vs Aiglx: Novell went off and created Xgl, while Red Hat essentially recruited a bunch of other projects to do the same thing in a different way. Different distributions became real-life test beds for real innovation, and the better technology won.

* Xen. Novell and Red Hat have a great lead over Ubuntu on management tools for Xen. You could’ve accused either of those companies of trying to provide better experiences for their users, but that’s just good business, not vendor lock-in. Ubuntu may be behind, but they’re able to pick and choose their approach to managing Xen–nothing Red Hat or Novell has done is keeping their technology out of Ubuntu or any other distribution looking for enterprise customers. Neither Red Hat or Novell has achieved any kind of lock-in with enterprise customers–what they’ve achieved is leadership.

* Upstart. Here’s an area Ubuntu pioneered, and others are adopting.

* LTSP, K12LTSP vs Edubuntu.

I could go on and on. So I will. Distributions are always trying to shine at some particular set of features. Users decide which ones are appropriate for their needs. This is a fantastic thing. If Ubuntu weren’t trying to make their servers work particularly well with their desktops, they open an opportunity for another distribution who would. As long as a distribution can stay ahead of the competition technically, they deserve all the success they get–they’re pioneering the way, and the whole open source community benefits.

Okay. Now here is what would be vendor lock-in. If Canonical created some tricky way of making their servers talk to their clients, and then patented it so they could sue anybody else who tried to do the same thing, THAT would be vendor lock-in. If Red Hat embedded some private key on their commercial server that unlocked some turbo-samba supercharger, and encrypted their algorithm so nobody else could see it, and then put the key to unlock that speed in their desktop, THAT would be vendor lock-in.

But any open source company that tried such a tactic would be instantly cut off from the rest of the community–and they would probably have to violate a bunch of GPLd software to do so…

The competition between distributions make all of them better. While we’re all racing each other to see who can innovate faster, we still get the benefits of each other’s code, and Microsoft and Apple are starting to disappear in the dust in our rear view mirrors.

One other point I’d like to make: the earlier an open source project tries some new tactic to improve computing, and commits code to a repository the whole world can see, the better. Prior art is the key to defeating all the frivolous patents companies are taking out. If somebody tries something really inventive to eke out a bit more performance, I want that in a public Subversion revision associated with a date and a free license–it’s the best insurance we’ve got against a broken patent system.

On Patents and Free Software

Saturday, January 19th, 2008

I’ve spoken with a lot of entrepreneurs around Seattle, who have a misconception that using open source might somehow force them to give away their intellectual property. Intellectual Property is a hot topic around here, and entrepreneurs are told regularly how they need to have some to get funded. Yet they often think they can add their patented idea to free software and lock up their core idea. It’s a bit funny how they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I’m talking specifically about patents here. My understanding of the intent of patents is to give the originator of an idea a legal monopoly that allows them to invest large amounts of capital to bring a new innovative product to market, for the benefit of the rest of us. In an industrial age, patents make a lot of sense–building an assembly line takes a lot of capital, and if you have a bunch of competitors, nobody would make the investment to build the infrastructure, if they couldn’t lock up the market and get paid back for their investment.

Now, I won’t go into the social ramifications of this arrangement, but I’d like to make two arguments about patents in the age of software here:

  1. The cost of building a distribution and manufacturing network for a software idea is pretty much nil.
  2. Very few software ideas are non-obvious and innovative, or worthy of patent protection.

On the first point, if you had to build or buy your whole set of tools to run your application–compilers, web servers, operating systems, text editors–then yes, maybe you need some sort of way of protecting your investment in all that infrastructure. But with free software, you get all of this for free and have it deployed today on a $600 computer. Your next dollar spent is in your time getting your application actually written. The individual craftsman working from home after hours can develop software in his spare time that can rival anything coming out of a venture-funded startup or a multi-million dollar corporation with the help of all of this free software. Why does the startup need protection from a solo garage programmer? The only reason I can think of is to keep free-market economics from harming the investors, and profits going into the pockets of the entrenched players.

Patents take time and money to obtain. In the world of free software, programmers are far better served creating their idea and bringing it to market first, rather than wasting time and money on patents. Developing a solid program quickly and accumulating a base of customers for your service is going to be the best way to stay ahead of your competition.

So the big question I have for startups is, why should you get all the benefits of Free software with no financial outlay and ability to bypass all sorts of startup cost, and then keep your invention protected by patent? If patents protect a large capital investment necessary to bring a product to market, but then suddenly there is no large capital investment necessary to do so, why should you still need a patent? You can bring a product to market today with a few hundred dollars and a lot of elbow grease.

Of course, you might still be trying to get fabulously wealthy by locking up your idea so nobody else can use it. Fine. Take out your patent. Buy licenses from all the proprietary vendors to use as a platform for your idea. Don’t use software covered by the GPL, because you would not be able to protect your patent when you distributed your product–the GPL is incompatible with your patents, and you would lose your license to use the GPL software. Pay a whole lot more for startup costs, all to protect your fine idea… and then you’ll run up hard against the second point I’m making here: lots of other people have the same idea as you.

Our patent courts are getting inundated by suits from patent “trolls” who have purchased patents from inventors or researchers, and then sit on those patents purely for the purpose of suing others for profit. The targets of their lawsuits almost always had no awareness of the patent they’re being sued for violating–they came up with the same idea independently. Why on earth would we reward the person who filled out a bunch of paperwork to take out a patent, and punish the person who actually brought it to market so the rest of us could benefit?

Patents are supposed to be innovative, and non-obvious. The fact that many different companies come up with the same ideas independently all the time should indicate that those ideas are obvious to people in the field. Because the cost of bringing these ideas to market have dropped to virtually nothing, software companies do not need patent protection–there is very little capital outlay necessary to protect. Our current patent system punishes innovation, instead of promoting it.

Fortunately for the open source community, there are several things that make us more resistant to the patent threat than proprietary companies. We should assert these points whenever someone in the community is threatened by a patent holder:

  • No big pot of money. Because we don’t need much capital to get started, there’s not really any prize for patent trolls to go after. The patent trolls attack software companies, and their goal is not to drive the company out of business, but to profit off somebody else’s work. If there’s not enough cash in one place to provide that profit, they won’t bother to try. They’ll keep suing Microsoft and Blackberry and all those other venture-backed startups that still think the patent system isn’t broken.
  • Prior art. Here the public process of open source projects is a huge advantage. One of the best ways of invalidating a patent is to prove that there was prior art. What matters for this is the date of publication–was there prior art published before the date of the patent application? If so, and if that can be proven, it can completely invalidate the patent. Well, the Internet is nothing if not a big publishing machine. A public repository with revisions available by date seems to me like a great way of proving when an idea first entered a codebase of a particular project. Back that up with a look in the Wayback machine or a Wikipedia article, blog entries, IRC logs, and we can prove prior art with any discussions that happened before the patent application.

    Those poor, poor proprietary companies… they can’t even talk about things they’re trying to patent until they have their application in, or they might invalidate their own patent. When it comes to validating patents, the first date of publication or patent application wins.

  • The GPL. GPL v2 prevents patent holders from providing patent licenses to some recipients of the software, but not others. GPL v3 makes the rules much more specific, basically making covered software incompatible with patents. If you patent something you’ve extended from GPL v3 software, you’re violating the license and lose the right to use that software. So much for that business model.

Patents were originally designed to make it financially possible to bring innovative products to market so the world could benefit from that innovation. The current patent system, at least for the software world, does the opposite, standing in the way and penalizing innovation instead of promoting it. The Free Software movement is trying to do the same thing patents were created to do: make it possible to bring innovations to the public and protect innovators, in the face of a broken patent system. And while free software has taken away the potential for huge profits, it has also taken away the huge costs.

I was talking with a programmer last week about open source. He kept asking, “but how can I make money programming free software?” He seemed to think he was entitled to develop his idea, control it from start to finish, get venture funding, bring it to market, and everybody would buy it and make him the next Bill Gates. He kept saying that free software was not friendly to the community, because it took away everybody’s ability to make money. He seemed to think that proprietary software companies developing in a closed ecosystem was the key to developing good software, that that was the only way to make money in software, so if you didn’t work with his software community, you wouldn’t make any money.

I asked him where the money came from, and his answer was “the customers.”

Ah, so let me get this straight: customers are going to fund your closed ecosystem of buddies all trying to corner the market on particular ideas, just to keep this group of developers making money. Really? Even when there’s a completely viable alternative that does every bit as much as your system, without vendor lock-in?

Free software is, if nothing else, an advocacy group for users. Customers are the users in this case. Free software is software that users can use for whatever purpose they wish, can give to anybody they want, and change to suit their needs in any way they want–as long as they don’t restrict what other users do with it.

Free software is about community. However, in the free software world, users and customers are part of the community, not merely an external entity funding it all, a sugar daddy. In the free software community, the lines between users and contributors, between customers and vendors, become quite blurry. Doing something at the expense of part of the community, just so you can make a fabulous profit, isn’t going to keep you in business very long.

How to get the best price

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

… but are you sure price is the most important thing?

We’ve been on the receiving end of this type of call quite a bit these days. The unfortunate part about the whole deal is that pricing often seems entirely arbitrary.

When I got the bills for surgery on my ruptured Achilles tendon, I was amazed by the difference between the original price and the final price negotiated by my insurance company. Even though I had a very high deductible and had to pay most of the bill before the insurance kicked in, just having insurance lowered the cost dramatically, in some cases more than 50%.

As a service provider with payroll, taxes, and overhead, however, I’m less inclined to negotiate. With open source products, we’re providing incredible value to our business customers. But if we don’t get fairly compensated for our services, we wouldn’t be around to help businesses negotiate the open source bazaar for very long…

Skipping commercials is theft

Sunday, June 4th, 2006

… according to Jamie Kellner, former CEO of Turner Broadcasting, in an argument that ultimately caused the demise of the ReplayTV 4000. In case you don’t remember, the ReplayTV unit was essentially a Tivo that, among other things, automatically skipped commercials.

The IEEE Spectrum this month has a good article outlining the problems with Digital Rights Management and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). From the article:
“Copyright is being turned from a limited-term incentive designed to encourage creative artists to a broadly scoped transfer of wealth from the public to the private realm.”

IEEE Spectrum: Death by DMCA

Taking a stand

Saturday, April 22nd, 2006

I’m the token computer consultant in a local chapter of a business group, and I provide all kinds of services related to computers. Earlier this week I announced to the group that I don’t fix Windows machines. I know plenty of other computer consultants who make a fine living cleaning viruses, spyware, and fixing Windows issues.
I prefer to address business problems, come up with creative solutions that help businesses move forward, not fix what should already be working. And today I read a fine post by one of my favorite bloggers, which illustrates some of my motivation: Seth’s Blog: “No” to average.

The myths of big business

Thursday, February 2nd, 2006

Two quick stories caught my eye today, both related to pointing out the propaganda being foisted on us by large corporations…

First of all, an editorial in Wired: Wired News: Worship Not These False Idols. Tony Long asks why people think Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are worthy of so much adulation.

Next, Cory Doctorow writes about what keeps creative people from effectively competing with big business:
Boing Boing: MSFT: Our DRM licensing is there to eliminate hobbyists and little guys.

Data Theft: How to Fix the Mess

Sunday, July 10th, 2005

The New York Times has an interesting editorial running today by Joseph Nocera, about solving the identity theft problem. Nocera proposes making the banking industry completely responsible for identity fraud, the same way Senator William Proxmire held them accountable for credit card fraud in the early 1970s. From the article:

“When people ask me what can the average person do to stop identity theft, I say, ‘nothing,’ ” said Bruce Schneier, the chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security. “This data is held by third parties and they have no impetus to fix it.”

We’ve written about Schneier before. He is the author of several books about security, and takes a very pragmatic approach. In a recent post on his blog, he talks about the lack of responsibility the data warehouses take for their information links.

We’re also starting to work with merchant account providers, and frankly, I’m quite appalled at the careless disregard the big processing services and credit card companies have towards credit card fraud.

Let’s separate credit card fraud from identity theft for this discussion. Identity theft involves stealing your identity and using it to commit crimes, get around immigration laws, or generally hide the true identity of somebody. While that’s a definite problem, especially if it’s your identity that’s been stolen, it’s a different problem than the more simple credit card theft and fraud.

For any given credit card transaction, there are three groups of people involved:

  1. The consumer, who uses a credit card to make a purchase
  2. All of the middlemen who facilitate the process of moving money from the consumer’s account to the merchant’s account.
  3. The merchant, who sells the goods and receives payment from their processing service, and

Now, everybody’s talking about the risk to the consumer of doing online purchases, and all of these recent information leaks are scaring people from using or having credit cards. But consumers really don’t have any risk here at all, thanks to Senator Proxmire thirty years ago–if you use a credit card, you’re not liable for more than $50 of any fraudulent activity on your account. We have strong protection for consumers, and this protection is completely effective today for consumers faced with credit card fraud.

In the current situation, the financial industry isn’t affected much, either. When a consumer complains about fraudulent activity on their credit card, the processing service simply takes the money back from the merchant account at the other end of the particular transaction. On top of that, they charge the merchant a fee for processing the transaction reversal. And they probably charged the merchant a higher rate for the original charge, if there was anything fishy about the transaction. Furthermore, the more fraud that happens with a particular class of credit cards, the more justification the processing services have for charging a higher rate to cover the “costs” of the fraud.

In other words, each incident of credit card fraud actually generates additional revenue for the processing services!

Who pays? The merchant. Merchants sign up for credit card processing services because in most cases, businesses that start accepting credit cards typically see a ten to twenty percent increase in sales. But this additional sales comes with costs. There’s a monthly fee for the service. You have to buy or lease the card swiping boxes. Each transaction costs 18 to 30 cents, depending on the plan. And then the account provider deducts anywhere from 1.8% to nearly 4% out of the total sales price as a commission.

Think you’re getting a good deal on a processing service? Better look closer at that monthly statement. Quite often any advertised low processing rates a bank used to sell their service are added to cryptic fees and other sleazy ways they pad the bill so that their cut becomes bigger than it looks. It’s surprising they can get away with such blatently dishonest practices.

Charges on a merchant account statement are broken into “qualifying” and “non-qualifying” rates. Qualifying transactions get the lowest rate, while non-qualifying transactions often cost twice as much. All sorts of things can make any particular transaction non-qualifying: the card swipe isn’t read correctly so the merchant punches the number in manually; the consumer uses a business card at a merchant that is classified as more of a consumer account; the consumer adds more than 25% onto the bill as a tip.

And when these non-qualifying transactions turn out to be fraudulent, the entire transaction is reversed–the credit card processer withdraws the entire amount from the merchant’s checking account, and charges a handling fee. Much like what happens when a check bounces.

Credit cards are great for consumers, but becoming more and more of a risk for merchants. Unless something is done to place the responsibility for credit card fraud more squarely on the financial services industry, we’re likely to see more stores that no longer accept credit cards, the same way most have stopped accepting checks, for exactly the same reason.

Contrasting views on “Intellectual Property”

Sunday, July 10th, 2005

Today, there’s a review in the New York Times about Hot Property, a new book by Pat Choate that essentially claims the US is in technology decline because of “piracy.”

From the article:

Choate says that while industrializing countries may benefit from piracy, the world as a whole loses. ”Piracy and counterfeiting impede innovation: thieves do not invest in research, design, production, development or advertising. . . . The result is fewer new medicines, fewer advances in science, fewer new products, fewer new music CD’s, fewer new movies, less new software and higher prices for whatever is created.” Everyone is harmed, either directly or indirectly, ”when thieves steal from Microsoft and Disney.” And, he concludes, ”What is missing is the will of U.S. political leaders to confront those who are stealing U.S.-owned intellectual properties and with them the future of the American people.”

The irony here is that both Microsoft and Disney have risen to dominate their industries by building upon the innovations, and works, of others. In the case of Microsoft, most of the graphical desktop environment was not invented by Microsoft. It wasn’t invented by Apple, either. Both companies essentially copied the work of the Palo Alto Research Center (also known as PARC), a research laboratory that was part of Xerox Corporation.

Disney got its start with Mickey Mouse. Walt Disney created the cartoon character in a short 1928 animated film called Steamboat Willie. Steamboat Willie eventally turned into Mickey Mouse. But Steamboat Willie itself was based on a Buster Keaton film called Steamboat Bill, Jr, released less than a year earlier. And both characters came from an earlier song. As Lawrence Lessig writes in his book Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity:

It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in The Jazz Singer that we get Steamboat Willie. It is also from Buster Keaton’s invention of Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song “Steamboat Bill,” that we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse. …

… Indeed, the catalog of Disney work drawing upon the work of others is astonishing when set together: Snow White (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), Song of the South (1946), Cinderella (1950), Alice in Wonderland (1951), Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953)…

The list goes on from there. These companies did not get to where they are by creating something brand new, isolated from the rest of our culture–they copied what was all around them, made some unique changes, and brought their remixed ideas to market.

But apparently, others that do the same thing with their works are “pirates,” and copying these works result in lost dollars to them. Never mind that “piracy” of Microsoft operating systems has helped to make them ubiquitous, and reinforce Microsoft’s monopoly.

Of course, not everyone thinks this way. Just Friday, one of the most influential venture capitalists of Internet startups, Joi Ito, wrote this about software patents in support of the recent decision by the European Union to reject them:

I … believe that the notion that software patents somehow help venture businesses is a red herring and that software patents are primarily a tool for software monopolies to stay keep the little guys out.

You can download Lessig’s book (for free) here. Read Ito’s post: Joi Ito’s Web: One venture capitalist’s view on software patents. And, for the next week if you sign up for free NY Times registration, you can read the review of Choate’s book: ‘Hot Property’: Freebooters of Industry.

Read and make up your own mind.

Digital Music: Who Benefits?

Thursday, May 26th, 2005

Continuing on the thought-stream I started last week

The problem is one of scarcity thinking. It seems to me (and quite a few other smart people) that the whole landscape of economics is shifting, from one based on scarcity, to one of abundance. Chris Anderson writes:

… the classic definition of economics is “the science of choice under scarcity”. That’s a warning sign right there. From Adam Smith on, economics has focused almost exclusively on behavior within constraints. My college textbook, Gregory Mankiw’s otherwise excellent Principles of Economics, doesn’t mention the word abundance. And for good reason: if you let the scarcity term in most economic equations go to nothing, you get all sorts of divide-by-zero problems. They basically blow up.

On the MIT Forum panel, Dave Dederer and Robert Acker both seemed to get this. Dederer pointed out that however the business model shakes out, it was all rosy for musicians who own their copyrights–those who haven’t sold them to RIAA-associated record labels. Acker brought up Anderson’s Long Tail concept several times, pointing out the benefits to consumers of having all this previously unavailable music available.

The other two panelists (wish the moderator had taken some time to express his views) seemed to be stuck in the old world view, a little bewildered at the amount of music “piracy” going on. David Weinberg, the Universal VP, seemed to love the ability to profit from their entire catalog of golden oldies. Put the old hits online, keep them under copyright, let anyone buy them from you, but sue the crap out of them should they share them without you getting compensated. And Bill Valenti of Melodio provides a great distribution network–distribute it via cell phone. People could still share their music, and get nickeled and dimed for the privilege. Because the whole platform is “trusted,” whenever somebody shares a song with somebody else, the content kings in the sky know about it and can charge the recipient accordingly. And we thought we’d gotten past 1984 without Big Brother.

Bruce Schneier, a noted computer security expert, provides the security community’s definition of trusted:

A “trusted” computer does not mean a computer that is trustworthy. The DoD’s definition of a trusted system is one that can break your security policy; i.e., a system that you are forced to trust because you have no choice.

In other words, if you have a trusted device, the question to ask is who trusts it? Can you trust your cell phone to do what you want, without telling the rest of the world about it? Obviously, in this case, not. It’s Melodio who trusts your cell phone, not you–trusts it to tell them when you share your music.

Let’s take a look at the music industry through a different view: who is involved? We have several different players. Two stand out as the most important ones: musician, and listener. The others are just middlemen trying to make a profit by controlling the distribution of music between the musician and the listener, taking advantage of natural bottlenecks that create scarcity, and now trying to impose an artificial scarcity as those bottlenecks disappear.

Let’s look at these roles closer, and assess their value in the economics of music.

  1. Musicians. Most musicians who make a living from music, do so through concerts and shows. Very few make a living off of CD sales, even the most popular of them. In most cases, CD sales basically prime the audiences and provide a large number of people willing to buy tickets to hear the band live–and the band gets most of the proceeds of their shows, unlike of their CDs.
  2. Filters. There are millions of musicians. In the age of record albums, CDs, and distribution of music on physical media, it’s simply not possible to make a profit by recording all the musicians and putting them in record stores. Somebody needs to pick musicians to record, promote, and turn into stars. This has been the recording companies.
  3. Producers. These are the people who record the music, making it available. These are the owners of the studios. It used to be that a good studio and high-quality audio equipment cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, putting them well out of the range of the amateur. No longer is that the case–as the cost of high quality recording equipment has come down, and as commodity PCs have learned how to mix music, anyone with a few thousand dollars and some time on their hands can put together a studio better than what was available at any cost a few short decades ago. Until recently, the recording companies owned the studios. Now anyone can.
  4. Marketers. These are the people who promote musicians, turn them into stars. The recording industry is practically a star making machine. Who becomes a star? Who knows? It’s not often the best musician, the best songs, the most presentable, or anything–it’s just whoever is good enough who happens to be in the right place at the right time to catch the attention of the people with the marketing power–again, the recording industry.
  5. Distributors. This is the network of distributors and music stores that present albums, singles, tracks, whatever, to the audience. There are several different distribution chains–radio stations, MTV, record stores, and now digital stores like Amazon, Apple iTunes, Rhapsody, and Yahoo!. Ultimately it’s the distributor who collects the money from the consumer and delivers the goods, feeding the entire chain back up to the musician, at which point there’s very little revenue left. The recording companies themselves have owned part of this distribution chain, with their CD music clubs and the distribution networks that deliver to the retail outlets.
  6. The listener. Finally we’re down to the people who pay for it all–you and me.

Notice that the middle part of this chain has been completely dominated by the recording industry–mainly by a handful of huge record labels. They’ve completely owned the filters, producers, and marketers, and a large part of the distribution chain. But times are changing.

Filtering is essential in an economy of abundance. When there’s an overwhelming array of similar items, how do you choose? I used to sell skis for a living, at the REI store in Anchorage. We had dozens of different skis, in both cross-country and downhill categories. Our selection of cross-country skis were easy to sell, because there are enough distinctly different ways of cross-country skiing that we only had one or two options for a category. You could get a ski that was good for classic touring, or skating, or telemarking, or backcountry. You could get something that was okay all around, but not particularly good at any individual aspect. It was easy to place each ski model on a scale and define its strengths and weaknesses, because the scale was very clear, at least to me, and there were at most two choices for any position on that scale. I could easily talk to a customer and filter down to the right ski for their desires.

Not so in the downhill ski section. Yes, there were skis designed for cruising, and others for doing lots of sharp turns. (This was before the days of the short fat skis that dominate the racks now…). Some skis were stiffer than others, making them better for heavier skiers, or more aggressive ones. But for every point on this turns vs. stiffness landscape, we had four or five different models of skis. What’s the difference? They’re all slightly different, but which one is best boils down to taste, and frankly doesn’t matter that much. I could not effectively filter down to an individual model for a customer, because there were too many choices. The best I could do was get them to the right category, see which color they responded to the best, and reinforce their decision that that set of skis would be great for them. It was essentially an emotional decision on the part of the customer–it didn’t really matter which one they got.

Taking this to music, the recording companies have provided filters by creating specific genres, attempting to classify each artist into one (and only one) genre, based on what the music sounded like. They hire a few people as “experts” in these artificial genres to pick artists they think will sell, based on the arbitrary genres they just set up. And they cross their fingers, hoping that some music critic or teenager will love the artist enough to spark mass sales. If not, they roll the dice on somebody else.

It’s not a very effective filtering system, but it’s the best we could do, when the filtering had to come before the production, because of the scarcity built into physical production.

With production growing abundant, this is no longer necessary–we can produce the music first, and filter later. Recommendation systems like Amazon provide a mechanism for people recommending titles they particularly enjoy. Anyone can be a music critic, and recommend their favorites to their friends. Word-of-mouth has long been recognized as the most effective marketing strategy, and with an abundant music landscape, it has become more important than ever. People find music based on recommendations from people they trust. To truly influence people to buy a particular band, you need to be trustworthy–you need to have a good reputation. This is the essence of branding.

In this environment, if you were a musician, would you choose to hire a small marketing/public relations firm to promote your music, or a large record company who doesn’t care much about your particular band, as long as they have enough stars in their stable of musicians? As I see it, the recording industry has virtually had a monopoly on production and distribution, which gave them a lot of power and control over filtering, marketing. As they lose their production monopoly, and people find other distribution means, they lose relevance in filtering and marketing.

Distribution, of course, is the big battleground right now. Millions of people have discovered the Peer-to-peer file sharing services, which completely bypass the recording industry’s traditional locked-in distribution channels. Pundits keep saying that if the recording industry could come up with a new distribution model that gave people what they wanted, most people wouldn’t resort to “piracy.” I’m not sure that’s true–the recording industry is fighting for relevance in all of its former roles, and the distribution monopoly is the only one they have left. If they can’t convince both musicians and audiences that their distribution channels are the only way to legitimately get music, their whole business model collapses.

Okay. For the rest of this post, let’s pretend that all music has to be distributed through sanctioned, RIAA-approved distribution channels. What distribution models are out there, what makes them work, and what’s in it for the artists and listeners?

  1. Physical distribution. That’s what we have now. This model is becoming obsolete–digital distribution is becoming much easier, cheaper, and interesting.
    • For the recording industry, this model no longer works because they can’t control what you do with the music once you’ve bought it–you can copy it to any digital device, share it with your friends, play it anywhere, and the recording industry doesn’t get another dime.
    • For the artist, this model works for those chosen by the recording industry, but not for anyone else–independent labels of new musicians find it virtually impossible to get wide distribution in record stores.
    • For listeners, the main drawback is cost–it’s expensive to buy a full CD of music if you only like one track. It takes a little effort to copy a CD to your computer to get it into your MP3 player or digital jukebox, and you can get sued if you share it with others–potentially even if you make a mixed tape to give to your love interest.
  2. Apple iTunes model. This is the initial runaway success. Time will tell whether it will last for the long run. In this model, people buy a track at a time, for unlimited use on a limited number of devices.
    • For the recording industry, this system is great–until someone cracks the copy protection on the individual tracks. They get revenue from all the downloads of music, and if the user wants to distribute it widely, they get additional revenue. They potentially get paid for the same music from the same listener multiple times.
    • For the artist, this is also good, even if they aren’t with a big label. According to Dederer, some 25% of their revenue already comes from the Apple iTunes store, because they were able to negotiate a deal directly with Apple. For artists with some marketing clout who own the copyrights on their music, this is fantastic. For artists working with RIAA labels, nothing much has changed. For new or unknown artists, if they get some good marketing or PR, there are more opportunities here than there was with physical distribution, because they can skip the big labels and get straight into the distribution channels.
    • For the listener, there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it doesn’t cost much to buy a single track compared to buying a full CD. They can sample all kinds of music without spending more money. They can use others as filters to recommend good tracks buried far down the long tail of old hits from the RIAA catalogs. The big minus is that there are technological restrictions to putting the music on a bunch of devices. No more mixed tapes or CDs. No giving the music to your friend–you’d have to buy it for them. And, worse, sooner or later you might lose your entire music collection due to a hard-drive failure, theft, or any other technological calamity. What many people buying music from iTunes have overlooked is that they’re allowed to copy their music to a very limited number of devices (somewhere around 3 to 5, not sure exactly how many). Once you’ve copied it to the limited number of devices, you’re done–you can’t move it to another device without buying the music again. This goes back to the “trusted” computing we mentioned earlier–you can only play this music on devices Apple trusts, and when you’ve reached their arbitrary limit, they’ve cut you off. Upgrade your iPod enough times and you’ve got to replace your entire music collection.

      When people start hitting this limit, the entire iTunes model may blow up. Yes, there are ways of cracking this Digital Rights Management (DRM) scheme, but doing so in the United States makes you a criminal, thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This isn’t going to make people very happy.

    Melodio is using exactly the same business model, only they’re adding more features to attract listeners to using their system, and using a system that’s going to be harder to crack, meaning they can technically enforce their arbitrary rules more effectively than Apple. This benefits only the recording industry.

  3. Subscription model. This is what Rhapsody and Yahoo are developing. In this model, subscribers have unlimited access to all the music in the distributer’s catalog, during the time they’re subscribed. The services can track who’s downloading what, and pay the license owners based on the proportion of downloads for the music actually listened to.
    • For the recording companies, this is another good model–they essentially get a smaller payment for each song, but get it every time the song is played.
    • Again, for the artist, this arrangement is quite similar to the track download model. They get paid in an equivalent way, they can bypass the record companies and work with the distributors directly if they own their own copyrights, basically this is only a difference in distribution.
    • For the listener, it’s “All you can eat” versus “you can’t take it with you.” As long as you’re at the buffet, you can sample whatever you’d like. For heavy music listeners this is great, until you leave the restaurant–give up your subscription and you have nothing left over.

      Like the previous model, this solution depends heavily on DRM and trusted platforms. If you have a trusted music player, you’ll be able to download music to it–but for it to be trusted, it’ll need to quit playing that music when your subscription expires. This adds all sorts of technical complexity and sophistication to these devices, adding to their cost, reducing their reliability, and limiting your freedom to do what you want to do with it. Basically, with either of these schemes, you do what the distributors say you can do with the music, or don’t listen to it at all. Or download cracking tools and become a criminal. There are slight variations in the rules you must obey, but you can pick and choose among these variations to get the plan that suits you best.

  4. Media tax. The final “legitimate” music distribution model out there is what radio stations use, and it’s also in place in Canada. Radio stations pay a fee to an industry association called ASCAP, for the privilege of playing music by ASCAP artists. ASCAP is then supposed to distribute the proceeds to the copyright holders (often the recording companies, who don’t necessarily pass these proceeds back to the artists). In Canada, the federal government puts a surcharge on CD blanks, cassette tapes, and similar media people often use to copy and share music. Again, these funds are paid to industry associations who are made responsible for divvying up the proceeds as appropriate.

    In the age of digital devices and small physical media sales, you could still charge a tax on MP3 players, CD burners, ISP connections, and the various other means of transporting music.

    Do these schemes work? I really don’t know much about them, beyond what I’ve just said. So here’s more speculation:

    • For the recording industry, who are big copyright holders, this is a fair solution, though it makes selling their services to musicians more difficult. At least they get paid for the music they currently own.
    • For musician, the big question is, how do you divide these proceeds appropriately? With no real ability to collect usage information, there’s no easy way to tell who is listening to what, or where. You might have to do something akin to the Neilsen television ratings to get some sample of the overall population to figure out how many people are listening to your songs, and get a piece of the pie. Under this type of system, there will be some disproportionate winners, and some disproportionate losers.
    • For listeners, this is the best possible solution. We get full freedom to do whatever we want with our music–copy it freely, use p2p applications to download and share it, mix it in all sorts of cool and wonderful ways, and give it away. On the other hand, people who don’t listen to music as much, but buy the same services and equipment, still have to pay the taxes. This ends up being socialism for the music industry–everybody pays so that a group of people (musicians and the recording industry) benefit.

    Is this good or bad? It’s great for music lovers, it’s okay for record companies and musicians with recognized hits. For everyone else, there’s a slight sense of unfairness about the scheme.

And that’s about it. I don’t know of any other music distribution schemes that provide any benefit to the entrenched interests of the recording industry. That’s not to say there are no other models. In my next economic musing, we’ll take a look at a completely different model, applying an open source model to music distribution.

I welcome your comments, and would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have on this subject. Please leave a comment or trackback on this post, and I’ll get it out there as soon as I can. Unfortunately, I’m getting flooded with comment spam about online poker and home mortgages, so I’ve had to turn on moderation. If you’re not spamming, your comment will be posted promptly!

The future of digital music

Thursday, May 19th, 2005

Why pay for something you can get for free? Many reasons:

  • Support the people creating what you like
  • Vote with your dollars
  • Save the time and effort of doing it yourself
  • Be a responsible member of the community

Why give away something you could get paid for? Again, many reasons:

  • Reach a wider audience
  • Make your creation available to people who otherwise couldn’t afford it
  • Free/cheap publicity
  • Generate good feelings for your business, leading to other sources of income
  • Be a responsible member of the community
  • Have your creation be the base for other works, leading to greater richness for everybody

These arguments are true for both open source software, and music. So why charge for software, or music?

  1. Put food on the table of the creators, and keep a roof over their heads
  2. Make it possible to pay for distribution to the masses
  3. Make a buck

In this last list, the Internet has made reason #2 obsolete. No longer do we need a big recording industry to aggregate dollars to make it possible to pay for studios, masters, distributors, and music stores. The average amateur can buy a decent microphone, make a studio in their garage, and use a computer to handle all the mixing, mastering and production, for no more than a couple thousand dollars. The Internet makes distributing that music almost free. No longer do we need big blockbuster hits to aggregate enough dollars to pay for studios so good that it highlights the musician’s flaws–amatuer equipment is good enough. No longer do you need to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of a CD to pay for those high production costs, to make a profit.

Recording companies used to be necessary to mass-produce music, because the cost of distributing music made it a scarce resource. Because only a few companies controlled the distribution in this expensive industry, the recording industry became gatekeepers, deciding what music and musicians might become popular enough to recoup their investment. The recording industry served as a filter before distribution of music, because the cost of distribution was so high.

Times have changed. Clay Shirky writes in his latest essay:

The Filtering is Done Post Hoc – There’s an analogy here with every journalist who has ever looked at the Web and said “Well, it needs an editor.” The Web has an editor, it’s everybody. In a world where publishing is expensive, the act of publishing is also a statement of quality — the filter comes before the publication. In a world where publishing is cheap, putting something out there says nothing about its quality. It’s what happens after it gets published that matters. If people don’t point to it, other people won’t read it. But the idea that the filtering is after the publishing is incredibly foreign to journalists.

… and we can add that filtering after music distribution is incredibly foreign to the recording industry.

I went to an MIT Enterprise Forum dinner panel last night. The topic was about the future of digital music. David Dederer, of the Presidents of the United States of America, was the representative musician on the panel. Other panelists included Bill Valenti, the CEO of Melodeo, a company that is trying to sell music over cell phone networks; Robert Acker, a VP at Real Media; David Weinberg, a VP for Universal Music; and the moderator, Michael Malone, founder of AEI Music Network.

So what’s the future of digital music? Depends on who you ask:

Robert Acker: “All you can eat” subscriptions. Real Media is betting heavily on their subscription service, Rhapsody. For one relatively low monthly price, you have access to any track in their 1.1 million song collection, any time you’re connected to the Internet. You can listen through your computer. You can copy it to your portable player. You can soon play it in your car. Make it easy enough, and this could be a great way to get your music.

By adding all of the social filtering pioneered by sites like del.icio.us, people can recommend music, and find new (or old) tracks recommended by people who have similar taste.

The problem with this scheme is that if you ever stop paying your subscription, you lose access to all of that music. By signing up, you’re in a sense locking yourself into this system, forever paying for the same thing over and over again.

Bill Valenti: Cell phones are ubiquitous. Nearly everyone has one, and people who have them are accustomed to paying for additional services. People willingly pay extra to send text messages and photos, or to download ring tones. The platform is closed, and the industry goes to great lengths to keep it closed and secure. Why not take advantage of this medium to distribute music, and be able to charge for it? You can buy music straight from your phone, and Melodeo makes a copy available to you on your computer. You can transfer a song to a friend’s phone immediately, and Melodeo can charge your friend for the privilege. By taking advantage of the trend for instant gratification, Melodeo and the wireless crowd hopes to make a mint.

David Weinberg: It’s all about owning the copyright, and marketing. If we can stop people from stealing music, provide a reasonable way for people to pay for and consume music, and prevent them from giving it away, we have lots of opportunities to do well in the digital age. Apple’s iTunes has made it possible to find all sorts of music that hasn’t been available for a while. Universal is busy going through their back catalogs and making old music long out of distribution available. This is leading to a big new revenue stream. Online music sales currently represent 3% of all music sales. While that may seem like a small piece of the pie, what’s remarkable is how fast it has grown, on the order of 50% in the last 6 months. [Okay, that growth figure is made up by your humble author--and all of this is paraphrasing...]. At the current rate of growth, digital media sales may very quickly become 25%, 35%, and more of the total music sales. Within three to five years.

Dave Dederer: For musicians, it’s an exciting time. While musicians like to get paid for the songs they perform, having a lot of people listen to your music for free isn’t really a bad thing. Musicians don’t get paid for songs played on the radio. By negotiating directly with Apple, the Presidents of the United States of America already make 25% of their income through the iTunes store, and this took very little work on their part to make happen. Dederer credits the recording industry for their popularity in the first place, but now that they’ve established their own label, they get a much better deal selling direct to their audience, via services like iTunes and Rhapsody. Responding to a question about piracy, Dederer called the record labels pirates, saying that their former label still distributes their music overseas, more than two years after their license to do so has expired.

This highlights a problem all of the panelists recognized: the right to distribute the same music in different countries isn’t always owned by the same entity. One label might own the North American rights, while a different label owns the European rights. And, of course, on the Internet national boundaries become meaningless.

All in all, the panel seemed to have a consensus on the various roles each entity had to play in the music business. Here were their conclusions:

  • Any future of digital media has to be convenient, easy, reasonable, and not prevent people from doing what they really want to do with their music.
  • Just like in the past, there is a role for the musician (create music), a role for the labels (promotion, financing, distribution), a role for the stores (selling songs, albums, subscriptions), and the role of the consumer (to pay for it all).
  • The panelists seemed to agree that with the rise of the Internet, much more power was moving away from the record companies, and to the consumers.
  • Musicians and consumers stand to benefit overall, musicians because it has become so much easier to communicate with their audience, and consumers because they have access to so much more music than was possible before.
  • In between, for the record companies and the distribution channels, there would be a small number of huge winners, and a lot of big losers. Somebody would find a business model that everyone would like, and come out on top. Most other companies would remain small or disappear entirely. Will it be iTunes, or Rhapsody, or Yahoo, or some other unforeseen breakthrough that a 19-year-old is inventing in their bedroom as we speak?

I’m not sure I agree with this last point. I have some very definite ideas about this whole landscape, and I see factors to this situation none of the panelists seem to recognize. I’ll be writing more posts about what’s missing from this picture, and propose a whole new model for music distribution. Actually, it’s not my idea at all, but a logical synthesis of the ideas of a bunch of other smart people. Stay tuned…

Digital Knowledge is power

Saturday, May 14th, 2005

Where do you get your information? Seth Godin wrote a very interesting post about The New Digital Divide. It’s not whether or not you have access to technology that counts–it’s whether you choose to engage with the growing online conversation represented by blogs, Jon Stewart, and Google, or get your world view from Fox News.

Thought Thieves, patents, and free tv

Saturday, May 14th, 2005

Maybe Orwell wasn’t so far off after all. Microsoft UK has recently started a marketing campaign that is straight out of 1984: Thought Thieves. This would be hilarious if they were joking. They’re not.

The gist of the campaign is to get teenagers to create movies that show what they would do “if you saw your hard work being passed off as the property of someone else” and submit them to a competition. Trying to recruit teenagers as thought police? Sounds vaguely familiar…

On other fronts, a major TV-show trading site, btefnet.net, got shut down this week. This site had people exchanging high-quality video files recorded from broadcast television shows, using BitTorrent, a powerful peer-to-peer file sharing application widely used to distribute Linux distributions and free content of all types. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sued them and five other sites to get them to stop distributing copyrighted television shows.

Obviously, broadcast television programs are not free. They’re copyrighted programs, and were expensive to create. But aside from the cable bill, you don’t actually pay to watch or record a tv show. So what do the Hollywood studios and the MPAA stand to lose from you getting a copy of a free show? According to the MPAA, they lose advertising revenue and a market for syndicating shows later. And because they “own” the content, they have the right to control its distribution.

Have you ever had a friend or neighbor tape a show for you, and give you the video tape? According to the MPAA, that’s illegal. That’s exactly the level of illegality these file-trading sites have. BTEfnet.net didn’t even share movies or software or games or other things you generally have to pay money for. Only TV shows that you could tape yourself for free, with a little bit of effort–the combination of BitTorrent and an automatic downloading system available for some of the BitTorrent client software is much easier than trying to figure out when to set your VCR to record, and much cheaper than a TiVo subscription.

Is it really illegal? Well, I’m sure you could find an attorney to support just about any reading of its legality. According to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), if there was any encryption defeated, yes it’s illegal. Under the DMCA, the mere act of watching a commercial DVD in Linux is illegal, because it outlaws any tools that defeat the encryption of copyrighted material. Even your own copyrighted material.

But you could make an argument that the original authors of the United States Constitution might have thought exchanging such works would be fine. They would probably argue that the original purpose of copyrights, to provide incentive to get creative works that would eventually be in the public domain, has been warped beyond all sense of reasonableness by a coalition of large corporations trying to maintain a monopoly on ideas.

I’m a writer. I produce content in the form of words and code for a living. You might think I would want to jealously guard my content, prevent anyone from using it for their own purposes. You would be wrong.

The funny thing about ideas is that they are more valuable when they are shared, and more irrelevant when they are hoarded. If you were a musician, would you want to be heard by a few hundred people, or a few million? The recording industry hardly distributes the money it collects back to the artists–talk to a few artists and you might be surprised to find how little they make on CD sales through the labels. Even the popular ones make most of their money through concerts, not CD sales. Giving their music away online for free expands their audience, popularity, and ultimately the amount of money they could make through live concerts, without making much of a dent in the money they’re not making from CD sales. Only the record company executives and owners have anything to lose as their business model becomes irrelevant–and they’re fighting tooth and nail to keep the Internet at bay, sueing grandmothers and teenagers.

Likewise, when the CEO of Proctor and Gamble, the largest advertiser in the world, declares at an advertizing convention that television advertising is broken, you know the broadcast media is frightened. BitTorrent and Peer-to-peer networks put users in control of what they watch, allowing them to skip advertising and watch programs on their schedule, instead of the broadcaster’s schedule. As we regain control over our time, and can still participate in mass culture through time-shifted media, the old business models of record label conglomorates and Hollywood studio executives having an exclusive monopoly on reaching the public is disintegrating.

Meanwhile, proprietary software companies like Microsoft try to spread propaganda, and get teenagers to participate in this propaganda, by promoting the concept that ideas can be exclusively owned by somebody, and sharing those ideas is theft. What a twisted world.

Copyright isn’t the only area that’s an issue–there’s also patents. Fortunately, patent terms are short compared to copyright, expiring after a dozen years instead of a century or more. Unfortunately, in Internet time, people are innovating so quickly that having an algorithm locked up in a patent makes it tough for any software to really have a breakthrough advance–they have to spend too much time avoiding patent lawsuits if they happen to come up with a similar solution to a similar technical problem that some other company patented.

Why is this a problem? Because software is complex, and built upon other software. The typical Windows machine can easily have over 100,000 individual files, and a very high percentage of those contain code that is part of a program. Any one of these files could run in such a way that it infringes on somebody’s patent.

Computers are often compared to construction. Imagine if one company got a patent on making wall studs sixteen inches apart. Another company patented the process of putting a hardwood floor together, and yet another patented a door hinge. With hundreds of such “inventions” patented, nobody could afford to build a house, because of all the people who had to be paid a license. Even if you didn’t know about any of these patents, but came up with a similar solution to a patented process, you could be taken to court. The computer industry is new enough that many of these basic building techniques are still covered by patents, and this situation seriously hampers the ability of software companies and the open source software community’s ability to truly innovate, let alone build decent houses to any sort of standard.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read this: Wine development stifled by software patent. Wine is a set of libraries that make it possible to run Windows software in Linux. Because Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, they are required by the Consent Decree from the Department of Justice to not do things to prevent interoperability between their application software and other operating systems than Windows. But another company holds a patent on a key way of assembling Windows software, and so the open source Wine library can’t provide full interoperability without infringing on this patent. Regardless of whether they even knew about the patent or original method.

And even though IBM has publicly granted open source projects a free license for some of their patents, this patent grant has caused problems for more liberal open source projects that allow people to include their code in other proprietary software. These liberal open source licenses are generally considered much more friendly to business than the “copyleft” types of licenses like the GNU General Public License–but because of the patent issues, a project would need the copyleft provisions to be able to use the patented techniques. See Patent worries trigger PostgreSQL code rewrite for an example.

It’s long past time for people to pay attention to this stuff. We should all be asking:

  • Who benefits from these copyright rules?
  • Why shouldn’t I be able to share information freely? Free Speech is covered by the First Amendment.
  • How does the public benefit from extended copyright terms, and patents on software and business processes?
  • Why is it illegal to sing the Happy Birthday song in a public place or over the air, without paying a licensing fee to a big corporation?
  • Why should I buy computers, movies, and content that reports back to the copyright holders whatever I do with them?
  • Why are my Constitutionally-given rights to Fair Use of copyrighted material being taken away from me?

Feel free to share this content with anyone, and publish it anywhere. All I ask is that you give me credit for the original writing, and that if you change the content and redistribute it, that you not add any other restrictions to the people you give it to. These are the terms of the Creative Commons “Attribution-Share-Alike” license, viewable here.

–John Locke
Freelock, LLC