Another Business Model for Art: eBay

One of the things that I and others like to emphasise is that investigating new business models is crucial for the survival of art, artists and the companies that work with them. A signal failure to do that has led to the current excesses by the content industries, which have instead become fixated on increased enforcement of copyright laws that are simply unenforceable in the digital age.

Against that background, it's always heartening to hear about artists trying out new things - like this:

Hello, my name is Daniel and I make songs. You can see my stuff by typing "Dan Bull" into YouTube. I've decided to find out what my music is really worth so I'm sticking myself on eBay. The winning bidder will receive:

One song on any topic of your choice, written, performed and produced by Dan Bull. Duration: 2.30 - 3.30 approx. I will liaise with you via e-mail if there any specific details you wish to include in the song. You will be free to use and redistribute this song in any way you wish, however I reserve the right to do the same. The song will be delivered to you in MP3 format within 14 days of the winning bid.

Get bidding now, because this may never happen again. Love from Dan :) x

Well, I actually think it might well happen again - especially if people bid enough money for Mr Bull's song. This patronage/auction model clearly generalises to other forms of creativity, and is flexible enough to encompass all levels of production, from rank amateurs to the biggest names. Interesting stuff. (Via @tdobson.)

Labour's Open Hypocrisy

The "O" word has been much on the lips of the UK government recently, what with all the nice things it's been saying about open source, and now this:

The independent Power of Information Task Force published its report on 2 March. The report contained 25 challenging recommendations to government aimed at improving the use of information in this new world. The Task Force's work has been recognised internationally as providing a cutting-edge vision, with examples of what modern public service delivery might be.

The Government welcomes the task force’s vision, accepts its overall messages and will be responding on the detailed recommendations shortly. We are already taking steps to implement this vision and in 2009 we will seek to deliver the following:

Open information. To have an effective voice, people need to be able to understand what is going on in their public services. Government will publish information about public services in ways that are easy to find,easy to use, and easy to re-use, and will unlock data, where appropriate, through the work of the Office of Public Sector Information.

Open innovation. We will promote innovation in online public services to respond to changing expectations. The Government will seek to build on the early success of innovate.direct.gov.uk by building such innovation into the culture of public services and public sector websites.

Open discussion. We will promote greater engagement with the public through more interactive online consultation and collaboration. We will also empower professionals to be active on online peer-support networks in their area of work.

Open feedback. Most importantly, the public should be able to have a fair say about their services. The Government will publish best practice in engaging with the public in large numbers online, drawing on the experience of the www.showusabetterway.com competition and the www.londonsummit.gov.uk, as well as leading private sector examples like www.ideastorm.com.

Open information, open innovation, open discussion, open feedback: well, that's just super-duper and fab and all that, but why not allow a little openness about what the UK government is doing? How about getting rid of the absurd Official Secrets Act, the very antithesis of openness? How about putting the teeth back in the Freedom of Information Act? How about not refusing to publish documents about the Iraqi war? How about letting us see details of MPs' expenses? How about letting us know where our MPs live? How about letting the public openly rate the government itself - the one group that seems excluded from the wonderful plans to "ebay-ise" UK public life?

Because, strange as it may seem, openness does not have hard lines: if you're going to be open, you're going to be *really* open, everywhere. Otherwise, it just further debases an increasingly fashionable concept, takes our cynicism up a notch or three, and alienates those of us fighting for *real* openness.

Behold the Biohackers

This is clearly getting serious:

Katherine Aull's laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, lacks a few mod cons. "Down here I have a thermocycler I bought on eBay for 59 bucks," she says, pulling out a large, box-shaped device she uses to copy short strands of DNA. "The rest is just home brew," she adds, pointing to a centrifuge made out of a power drill and plastic food container, and a styrofoam incubator warmed with a heating pad normally used in terrariums.

In fact, Aull's lab is a closet less than 1 square metre in size in the shared apartment she lives in. Yet amid the piles of clothes she recently concocted vials of an entirely new genetically modified organism.

There's no stopping this now; great and terrible things will come of this....

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody

Collaboration Markets and Open Source

Here's a detailed and important piece that looks at the economics of scientific collaboration. One concept that may be of particular interest to readers of this blog is that of collaboration markets:

There are good reasons it’s difficult to set up efficient collaboration markets in expert attention. Creative problems are often highly specialized one-off problems, quite unlike the commodites traded in most markets. Until very recently, markets in such specialized goods were relatively uncommon and rather limited even in the realm of physical goods. This has recently changed, with online markets such as eBay showing that it is possible to set up markets which are highly specialized, provided suitable search and reputational tools are in place.

To the extent such collaboration markets do exist in science, they still operate very inefficiently compared with markets for trade in goods. There are considerable trust barriers that inhibit trading relationship being set up. There is no medium of exchange (c.f. the posts by Shirley Wu and Cameron Neylon’s on this topic). The end result is that mechanisms for identifying and aggregating comparative advantage are downright primitive compared with markets for physical goods.

Perhaps the best existing examples of collaboration markets occur in the open source programming community. No single model is used throughout that community, but for many open source projects the basic model is to set up one or more online fora (email discussion lists, wikis, bug-tracking software, etcetera) which is used to co-ordinate activity. The fora are used to advertise problems people are having, such as bugs they’d like fixed, or features they’d like added. People then volunteer to solve those problems, with self-selection ensuring that work is most often done by people with a considerable comparative advantage. The forum thus acts as a simple mechanism for aggregating information about comparative advantage. While this mechanism is primitive compared with modern markets, the success of open source is impressive, and the mechanisms for aggregating information about comparative advantage in expert attention will no doubt improve.

Why eBay Should Open-Source Skype

eBay is not going through the happiest of times. Not only has it found it necessary to make 1000 people – 10% of its workforce – redundant, it has had to own up to a serious breach of trust with its Internet telephony program, Skype....

On Linux Journal.

Signs of the (Digital) Times

Readers of this blog will know that I am fascinated by the analogue/digital divide, and how the passage from one to the other causes all sorts of interesting problems:

Question: Why is eBay requiring sellers of digitally downloaded goods to list their items in the Classified Ads format?

Answer: Most items that require digital delivery, once created, can be very easily replicated. This ease of replication creates the opportunity for sellers to list thousands of the same item in an attempt to manipulate the Feedback system. It also creates a perception that even legitimate sellers of Digital Goods are manipulating the Feedback system. This dynamic -- real and perceived -- undermines trust across the entire marketplace.

We understand that digital goods, by themselves, are not the cause of Feedback Manipulation, but clarity of policy and ease of enforcement require all digitally downloaded items to be offered via the Classified Ads format.

Tricky stuff this business in the absence of scarcity.... (Via Techdirt.)

Too Good to be True?

Interesting:

Monroe was the victim of a "money mule" scam, in which criminals make use of third parties (often unsuspecting victims like Monroe) to launder stolen funds. Mule recruitment is an integral part of many cyber crime operations because money transferred directly from a victim to an account controlled by criminals is easily traced by banks and law enforcement. The mules, therefore, serve as a vital buffer, making it easier for criminals to hide their tracks.

The bottom line:

The old adage, "If an offer or deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is," is just as appropriate in the online world than it is in the physical world, said eBay's Pires.

- Unless, of course, it's free software.... (Via Slashdot.)

Source(Forge) of Strength or Weakness?

On the Open Enterprise blog.

Sword Patents

Nice:

MercExchange has utilized its patents as a sword to extract money rather than as a shield to protect its right to exclude or its market share, reputation, good will, or name recognition, as MercExchange appears to possess none of these.

eBay Loses the Plot - and its Future

One thing that is evident online is that the line between real and virtual is increasingly evanescent (for the full half-hour argument, read Ed Castronova's thought-provoking Synthetic Worlds.) It follows that the companies that will thrive tomorrow are the ones that can seamlessly accommodate the sometimes disturbingly virtual alongside the comfier real.

Cross eBay off the list:

eBay is now delisting all auctions for 'virtual artifacts' from the site. This includes currency, items, and accounts/characters

So, here's a question for all you entrepreneurs: who wants to become the eBay of 21st century? (Via Virtual Economy Research Network.)

Update: eBay has managed to find a couple of neurons, it seems.

Gold Digg-ing

The news that someone is offering their Digg profile on eBay is hardly a surprise in these days when people will try to sell anything there; but it's nonetheless significant. Digg is one of the leading Web 2.0 sites, and a leading exponent of the power of social networks. What can be done with Digg can be applied elsewhere.

This will lead to a de-coupling between the person who creates the online account in these networks and the account itself, which can be sold to and used by others. Which raises the question: wherein lies the value of that account? If the person who created it - and whose social "value" it reflects - moves on, what then of that value? In effect, the account becomes more of a brand, with certain assumed properties that can be lost as easily as they were gained if the new owner fails to maintain them.

Curioser and Curioser

"Leaks" (yeah, right) about another new Microsoft Live service: Windows Live QnA, going, er, live soon. What's curious is that this is a version of Google Answers that is entirely open and democratic. In other words, it's a kind of cross between Wikipedia and eBay, where anybody can answer, and people rate the answers using a reputation-based scoring system. But wait: isn't Wikipedia discredited these days? Has anybody told Bill about this communistic stuff?

(And just look at all the Windows Live Betas coming through: wow, Microsoft is really moving here.)