I agree that fundraising is one of the big obstacles to free culture becoming more mainstream. However, I am a less optimistic about people becoming accustomed to the idea that a donation is something that's normal. I think we are so conditioned by economic exchange that we expect something direct in exchange for our money. Even if it's symbolic, like a brick with your name on it in a bridge. People crave recognition and a personal connection with an artist or creator.
Ever since I heard about the oxcars<http://exgae.net/exgae-multiply-and-share-forth/theoxcars>, I've been daydreaming about an awards ceremony every year in which we appreciate the artists and projects which are most loved, but which involves fan participation and which also generates income for creators. Of course, the oxcars were not exactly that, but they do throw a good gala for free culture. why not get everyone involved in it as a social network and give money to the artist with each vote? Artists will be motivated by pride and economic incentive and will encourage their friends and fans to participate. Users will benefit, because they can see (like filmaffinity.com) what other people have voted for, and if their tastes agree, then they can look up interesting new artists and know if their popularity is merited by how others voted. People who do not have money to vote can at least put their preferences in to a database which will give them more information about what artists, programs, creations, etc, they are likely to enjoy, etc. brainstorming some rules and ideas: 1) each person can only vote once (for example 1€) for any given artist in any specific category. But they can pay more, if they want to help out the artist. 2) people might like the idea of a participatory network with awards for nonfree or commercial culture as well. This would help this whole thing get off the ground. Commercial artists would not be paid for their votes. By seeing the money they are not earning by sharing, they will have a strong motivation to cut out the middlers. To not exclude them entirely from the process, they could still decide where (all or part) of the money they themselves have generated goes - they could funnel the money they get from their votes they recieve to some free culture artist or project of their choice. 3) the awards should themselves be transparent, nonprofit, horizontal, consensus based, answerable to the users or some external body or bodies, and use free software and an ethical bank if possible. if not, for example, (i suppose initially paypal would be needed) then alternatives should be developed over time to replace them. 4) Since there is money involved, there should be some process by which artists can sign into the system and confirm their name and details or be vouched for that they are indeed the person they say they are before receiving payment, (perhaps by a name on a credit card, or by asking the fans who have voted for them, or through a vouching system as in couchsurfing.org). If there is doubt about a newly registered creator, they should have a waitiing period before receiving the first payment. 5) there WILL need to be a sort of temporary secrecy on the voting process at least of the top contenders for the awards in order to build up suspense. but the system should be completely transparent the day following the presentation of the awards. 6) there needs to be a system of categories, and perhaps expert users who determine what categories things are in, perhaps like dmoz. all aspects of free culture should be represented. 7) votes should be nontransferrable, permanent, and nonrefundable. 8) in multiple-person groups/bands, filmmaking projects, etc, without a foundation representing them,one person will have to be elected the receiver of the money and the others will have to trust that person or write up a legal contract. basically, lawyers, a nonprofit, a social networking platform, and a lot of thought will be needed. The awards and the ceremonies themselves could be funded from a variety of sources: 1) artists who don't collect. votes should expire or lose value after a certain amount of time. 2) artists with too few votes In this process there is a minimum threshold under which an artist cannot get paid, and many artists will not get many votes. 3) artists with too many votes. (this is assuming the awards get huge) No one should get rich doing this stuff, and if someone gets millions of votes, they should merely get a decent salary, not enough to become a millionaire. 4) see item 3 above - commercial artists. A percentage of the money that they would be allowed to receive if they were to share could go to the awards themselves. 5) Not everyone will use their initial votes at once after buying credit in the system, meaning there will always be some capital in the bank. Everyone who wants to vote has to send the voting system a certain minimum, and you can only vote at most once for each artist in a single category. it is like a bank but more stable - i can't imagine there will ever be a run on voting like there is a run on a bank - after all, it's already money that has been spent and you can only spend it one vote at a time. 6) ticket sales from the awards ceremonies can pay for some costs if necessary. 7) donations (every transaction is an opportunity to ask for a donation for another project related to one that the person likes) 8) asking artists to donate special items that fans will want to buy. tshirts cds guitars, etc. with all of these fundraising options, there should be no need for advertising, especially if people like the idea of democratically voting for artists in lieu of being passive consumers at the Grammys. Lets dream of a future where this sort of shared art and culture is the mainstream, so there needs to be a way to deal with millions of users and fans, and have the economic success of richer groups support poorer groups. Perhaps each donation will be a brick in constructing a new culture of sharing. and hopefully a symbolic brick through the windows of the corporate media middlers. any thoughts? brian (in barcelona) On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > Danny, > > This is a brilliant idea. > > You're right that changing this to public expectation is essential -- > and doable. > Right now a lot of websites support themselves in part through a cut > of the support given to artists through their sites, so it's important > to think about what that means... something like sending a share of > donation proceeds to the online label-equivalent. > > Mozilla Drumbeat might be a great group to engage here. > > SJ > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Danny Piccirillo > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been thinking about this idea for a while, and since a related > question > > has been posted for Reddit's upcoming interview with Richard Stallman, i > > thought i'd finally make a post. The idea is basically to create a fully > > featured funding platform so that sites like Jamendo.com don't have to > > duplicate efforts enabling people to support works they appreciate. > Please > > let me know what you think > > > > > http://blog.thesilentnumber.me/2010/06/free-culture-projects-need-ubiquitous.html > > (http://www.reddit.com/tb/cbaul) > > The free culture movement, which is of a whole with the free software > > movement, has made a lot of great progress but is still struggling to > prove > > itself to be economically viable in the mainstream. I might even go so > far > > as to say that a lack of a better funding system is the single biggest > thing > > holding back many existing and many more prospective free culture > projects. > > Imagine if Add/Remove Applications and the Ubuntu Software Center > prompted > > downloaders with a "Donate" button that enabled users to easily support > > projects. Imagine if last— ahem— libre.fm displayed the same button for > > artists. Imagine if the idea of giving in order to support the production > of > > work you appreciate went from public appeal to the public's expectation. > > > > Currently the Software Freedom Conservancy exists as a fiscal sponsor for > > free software projects which "provides member projects with free > financial > > and administrative services, but does not involve itself with > technological > > and artistic decisions." In short, member projects get the protections of > a > > corporate entity without actually having to form and maintain one. > >> > >> By joining the Conservancy, member FOSS projects obtain the benefits of > a > >> formal legal structure while keeping themselves focused on software > >> development. These benefits include, most notably, the ability to > collect > >> earmarked project donations and protection from personal liability for > the > >> developers of the project. Another benefit of joining the Conservancy is > >> that projects can use it to hold assets, which are managed by the > >> Conservancy on behalf of and at the direction of the project. The > >> Conservancy is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, so member projects > can > >> receive tax-deductible donations to the extent allowed by law. > > > > The grander vision that is needed for free culture would require the > > infrastructure to scale plus provide more features. The primary > motivation > > for this system would be more broad: to support free culture by providing > > free financial and administrative services to projects. This > > pay-what-you-want app store of sorts would differ from what the Software > > Freedom Conservancy offers in two ways. > > > > Firstly, it would not be exclusive to software, but any free cultural > works. > > It might even make sense to welcome non free culture projects to join, > but > > perhaps only provide full benefits to verified free culture projects. For > > example, donations to non free culture projects may not be tax > deductible, > > and/or a 10% fee on donations could apply to donations towards unverified > > projects while verified and approved free culture projects receive the > full > > benefits of the program for free. Then again, an approval system might be > > hard to scale, and this being a funding system project, it could of > course > > be used to fund itself. > > > > Secondly, and this is the ambitious part, the platform would need to make > > the process streamlined so that any project could join. It should be > > developed as a free and, if possible, federated service. This service > should > > allow projects to collect donations through a variety of means. Projects > > should be able to display buttons or widgets on their own website, and it > > should be possible, as mentioned at the beginning of this post, for > desktop > > applications like Add/Remove Applications and the Ubuntu Software Center > to > > display "donate" buttons. Beyond basic one-time donation functionality, > > support could also be added for fundraising campaigns with a set goal > (think > > Kickstarter) and repeating contributions for subscriptions. > > > > If such a system were in place which provided programmers, writers, and > > artists a platform to easily accept donations directly from their > followers, > > free culture projects will be able to expand and prove viable on a much, > > much larger scale. So, who do you think has the resources for such a > > project? Which organizations would be interested in contributing? > > > > -- > > .danny > > > > ☮♥Ⓐ - http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo > > Every (in)decision matters. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > -- > Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
