Intangitopia licenses content under Creative Commons

We at Intangitopia are strong believers in that you can create more by collaborating than by blocking others. That is why we have decided to license the content on this website under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Sweden license.


We believe that by codifying the terms we provide our content under we can also encourage our readers to take a more active part in sharing and develop our thoughts as well as contribute with their own. Since most of the content on this website is ideas with which we encourage debate and collaborative thinking we also believe that this is to be shown in how we make the content accessible.

Jurisdiction
The license we have chosen is the Swedish version of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license. The reason why we have chosen the Swedish version is the simplest one; we are currently based in Sweden. The difference from the original license is however small and no substantial parts differ. Here is a markup copy of the original license with explanations of the differences.

Attribution and noncommercial
We have decided upon the license which requires the licensee to attribute us as individual authors and where appropriate also refer back to Intangitopia. We have also decided to use the limitation that the licensed content only can be used for non-commercial purposes. But as always, we can also waive this at any time by request from the licensee.

This license makes it possible for a licensee to use the content but also to make derivative works from it, i.e. improve our thought, models etc. The continued use, although in part, must still be attributed back to us.

Please feel free to give any feedback to this choice of licensing model or if you have any requests for use of the material in any other way tan provided by this license.

Johan Örneblad

When will Spotify’s regional restrictions be removed?

As you probably are aware of, Spotify announced last week that they were about to apply the regional restrictions which were part of the license agreements with the record companies. This is not such a surprising step though it might be annoying for us users.

Using the function to show unplayable tracks give me this image of one of my playlists. The red/brown tracks cannot be played. I am in the UK at the moment and since it is country specific restrictions they might very well vary. It might seem as a significant part, and I guess it is. But I also imagine that they will try to include them in the 10000 tracks added each day.

The discussion around regional restrictions should definitely be held but it must be around having them as a general phenomena and not whether or not Spotify should apply already agreed upon contractual regulations.

When it then comes to the record labels and they applying restrictions to music based on geographic territory I think it makes sense in the old economy thinking. When music mainly was (intended) to be sold on physical carriers such as CDs having regional limitations and using different distributors in different areas made perfectly sense.

But today, when music as easy could be downloaded in Gothenburg, London or Doha the restrictions makes less sense. The user will most certainly want to hear the same music independent of where in the world she is at the moment. As well as she would like to share the playlists or suggestions of interesting songs with friends around the globe.

When it comes to Spotify I am not sure if they will be the force that will change the thinking of the whole music industry. But they might at least change the customer behavior which eventually will change the labels, even if it probably will take some time.

Johan Örneblad

Wikipedia takes a step away from openness

The open encyclopedia Wikipedia has announced a step away from its totally open model used so far. The idea is that changes to certain articles would not be visible until they have been reviewed by a "trustworthy" person. The discussion has come to life after a false death announcement on the site, which can be seen here. Though the crowd actually corrected the false statement only in five minutes Wikipedia still considers to follow Encyclopedia Britannica on having reviewed articles.

The idea is explained more here:

The FlaggedRevisions (FlaggedRevs) extension has not currently been installed on the English version of Wikipedia, though it was implemented on the German language Wikipedia for all articles in May 2008. On the English version, it is currently being discussed here, here and here as to whether or not a trial should be attempted, to try out the various options and see if this system would work here, and how best to configure it.

Shift from openness

Though I might be inherently skeptical to the idea of letting the crowd have full power over the information gathering and quality review of an encyclopedia I am still skeptical to the quality control function perhaps to be implemented. Since the basic and fundamental idea of Wikipedia is the openness and the wisdom of the crowd, straining it will most certainly take the edge away from it.

Becoming more controlled means more closely linked to the establishment and the ideas expressed under each topic will be filtered, or at least thought to be. This is the same way as Encyclopedia Britannica has made, just the other way around. They are using trusted writers really skilled in the areas in which they contribute. These writers will also start to review user contributions and then possibly adding them to the database. What Britannica has but Wikipedia lacks is, at least from my perspective, trust in the individual reviewers/contributors.

Wikipedia is using a totally open model where they take benefit from that with large enough user base at least one will know the right answer. A model which has proven to work really well over the years and the last mishaps were corrected within 5 minutes. Establishing FlaggedRevisions will probably move the use and idea of Wikipedia away from what it was intended to be in to something else.

The future

Though Wikipedia still do not have any sustainable business model I do suspect that this quality review might be a first shift in centralizing information control and also perhaps start to leverage from the huge source of information in the database. It might not be conscious shift though.

Johan Örneblad

Via dn.se and nyteknik.se.

Obama message is shared under Creative Commons

The president-elect of the US, Barack Obama, has released the office of the president-elect webpage change.gov under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License. Meaning that you are free to copy, distribute and remix the work, as long as you mention the source.

It is of course so, as IPKat writes, that politicians have an inherent interest to have their views spread to as large audience as possible. But, one really important thing is, to keep some level of control over the message you communicate. I do not think that this license issue of the website content will affect his presidency in any major way. It can and could very well be so that the collaborative nature of this has made him more popular.

There is however an interesting difference in the copyright statements on the official campaign site barackobama.com since it there is not explicit if you are allowed to remix the content. That you can print and distribute is ok, as long as you mention the source.

As I see it, there can both be good and less good aspects of giving away the possibility to use elements from websites and campaigns as the ones mentioned. Since all communication interfaces are part of the overall brand I believe that there needs to be a consistency when it comes to the message communicated. But in the age of access where the masses can, and probably will, do what they like anyway, it might be hard to control all uses.

So, it might instead be more beneficial to limit the access to some parts and use openness in other areas. Just as Mr Obama has done.

Johan Örneblad

Nextopia in practice on iTunes

Nextopia has proven itself through a new feature on iTunes, where you can see the top content in the store for this year. It is unfortunately not available in Sweden, so I have not been able to verify it. But anyhow, even though the movie The Dark Knight has not yet been released it has outsold all other movies this year on iTunes.

The value of the movie is more likely to be higher when it is out of reach but still at your fingertips. Following the same rational, it will probably sell less and for a lower price just after it has been released. Since we constantly are looking forward to the next big thing, the movie will not anymore be as satisfying if it is accessible for all.

That the pre-order outsells other similar products released in the more common way has been proven several times with the Radiohead album In rainbows released last year. Even though the pre-ordered albums were at a pay-what-you-like-price they outsold the band’s previous album.

In a time when we literally have everything at our fingertips, the things that are the most valuable are the things we cannot get. At least what we cannot get right away.

What we do not have can be imagined to be whatever we want. That is the life in Nextopia.

Johan Örneblad

Patent disclosure and SSO

The court has agreed that failure to disclose essential patents required by the standard setting organization is considered to be a waiver of the patent rights in relation to the standard.

It is interesting to read that the court in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp (Fed. Cir., Dec. 1, 2008) has taken the issue of patent disclosures in standard setting organizations to a new level. There is a separation between organizations where you are required to license your essential patents by default when entering in to the organization and the cases where you explicitly have to disclose the ones you have knowledge about. It sounds reasonable to agree with the court that even if there were no explicit obligaton to disclose, the members of JVT understood it as if they were to disclose. By not disclosing, Qualcomm put the other members in a false understanding of the position when they were deciding upon the new standard.

Since standards are as important as they are, especially in the ICT sector, they also have to be treated as if they are. The economic impact of setting a standard, although a RF one in this case, could be enormous and the investments huge. Therefore we need more understanding of this impact, both in the legal system but more importantly in the SSOs themselves.

I know that there is a rising interest from the actors to look in to the patent policies which I think is good. One could of course ague if it should be constructed to be RF or FRAND, but most importantly is that it is clear to the actors in the organization to have a common understanding. This is where the decision in this Qualcomm case might be a pointer in the direction of more clarity.

Johan Örneblad

Monty Python goes YouTube, is it enough?

Monty Python have now entered YouTube with some sort of official aim to stop the unauthorized clips of the group on the site. But is it enough?

YouTube has had problems with copyrighted material for a long time. The model which they have chosen consists of an active identification tool where they search the content against a reference library with copyrighted material proved by the rights holders. You can also file a complaint on one of the videos stating that it is unauthorized material. The rights holders can then decide on either to block the content, track the content or monetize from the content.

Monty Python have chosen to start uploading their own content to YouTube, they have so far uploaded 24 videos in their channel. A rather small number if they are serious with wanting to give access to good quality content. But I believe that their aim is more related towards getting attention than anything else. At least since 24 clips won’t stop the flow of Monty Python content, as now there are around 30 000 videos relating to the group.

Interactive advertizing and privacy

An interesting follow-up on the digital fingerprinting technology used by YouTube, to identify copyrighted content, is to start using directed advertizing in relation to the content shown in other programs and other places than the original one.

We still see the rise of video content on the web being monetized in a good way as something which is to come. Google are watching YouTube closely to find out how and where to make money from the service. One way can be to continue with the watermarking and ad based revenue streams, both on and off the platform.

Privacy

I do however see problems in following the users too closely in their use of video content both on and off YouTube.com since it brings up privacy issues. I do especially see those issues arising when it comes to video since it is more disclosing of private issues than for instance music.

Although this can be somewhat solved with opt in or opt out alternatives for the users. It still is a problem since they are likely to get more and more used to the Big Brother like monitoring.

Where to go?

I think we are still in the emerging stage where the content providers are trying out different business models and different rights solutions to their content. Some, like Monty Python, are still in the setting where they think they will sell DVDs and use YouTube as an advertisement channel for the physical products.

My hope is however that the rights holders are going to see the potential in spreading the content, using the digital highways to expand their cake.

Some issues has to be solved, and they are in the emerging of being solved. The first one is to find good models to take in revenue. Ad based or subscription, or some other innovative way.

The second one is to go global on the rights. We live in a globalized world where it makes no or little sense to have diversified rights to digital content. There could be diversified rights to the revenues, but the access has to be global. More on that in a later post.

So, Monty Python might be funny. This is why 24 clips will not be anywhere near enough to stop the unauthorized content of them on the web.

When will I be able to watch “the dead parrot” with complements from Cleese and the boys?

Johan Örneblad

[Via DN]

McCartney and Guns N' Roses songs for free

More and more artists are starting to understand the power of free and that you can with much more on spreading your music than trying to stop the crowd from listening.

The latest in this is Paul McCartney and Guns N' Roses which will launch music on MySpace for exclusive previews. It is for Guns N' Roses the album Chinese Democracy which they will release in the US on November 23 and for the ex-Beatle an album from one of his side projects.

The fact that McCartney is in on this, raises the hopes that the whole catalog of Beatles music will be available digitally in a not too distant future.

But, in line with the development in general when it comes to content on internet, it is access which is important. Not to actually own the music. Keeping the use of the content on a access level will also ease up the rights issues since there will not be any rights handed over to the end licensee. Only a limited time access right which do not imply any more use.

So, we will probably see more of access. Either as free in some aspect or as a paid for service. But access is here to stay.

Ip in search

The issue might seem easy but the following video from UC Berkeley show interesting issues which can arise when regulations of the past meet new ways of expressing information.

I know, the video is starting to feel a bit old. I find myself thinking that “is that really a problem still”. Because, some of the issues brought up by Jason Schultz in his lecture are settled or best practices has developed over the three years since it was recorded.

The most recent one is the one on Google books project. The Association of American Publishers and Google have settled on how to compensate the alleged copyright infringement of the authors of which books are provided mostly in snippets through the search engine.

The lecture also discusses the difference in trademark infringement between buying a search term on Google and using a trademark in the ad text itself. This is an issue which now has ended up in a quite easy to understand policy. But the problems brought up in the video show the difficulty in applying an old economy thinking on to the new world of information. We see lots of confusion and protective measures, instead of embracing the future which is already here and start to use it.

I will continue to look in to the issue of IP and search engines with the next stop at Google books. Stay tuned.

Johan Örneblad

Is McDonalds McDonalds without McDonalds?

McDonalds are launching two new concept stores in Japan, featuring the Quarter Pounder, without any direct brand connection to McDonalds.

I have tried to understand if this is only a new type of viral marketing to create a buzz around the fast food chain or if it really is a new concept, perhaps to be launched somewhere else as well.

The choice in the stores consist of two set menus featuring either the Quarter Pounder or the Quarter Pounder with cheese.

This could as I see it be a way to strengthen their brand offering in the "real" restaurants as well. Having a clear focus on parts of their products and clearly define the concept at the new store can add value to the more diversified core offering.

McDonalds in Sweden have long had a focus on trying to rebrand themselves in the direction of being more healthy than what typically is expected from a fast food chain. This is why I could see a development in the same direction in Sweden as i Japan, with concept stores. The difference could however be that the Swedish restaurants would focus on healthy food.

For McDonalds to open this type of "healthy restaurants" would strengthen their brand as a healthy company (which I do not say that they are) since it will focus the attention to what they want you to perceive.

So, when will we see the new McSalad restaurants in Sweden?

Johan Örneblad


Here, here, here and here are more posts on the topic.
The picture were taken from here.

Business model book business model

The model where different parties collaborate on one outcome is not new but the problems with rights to the results are still there. The model with customer participation in the development is still interesting from different views.

One recent example of the collaborative model is the Business model and design blog and it's book chunk project. The readers are supposed to pay USD 24 to receive the upcoming book in small parts, perhaps every chapter. They are also asked to contribute and do some sort of "beta testing" of the book.

There are mostly positive comments on thins on the blog even though some of the readers suggest that the subscribers also would receive a copy of the finished book.

So far so good. As long as it is used in a thought through way I do only see good outcomes from such collaborations. But there might be rights issues to the end result which has to be solved in some good way.

There are already existing models for collaborative creation of software. But they are created more as licenses and perhaps not good in a situation as the one described above where two "main writers" only use the ideas of others as it fits them. Not as a main part of the whole creation process.

As I understand the Business Model book project it will only use the readers for input and not as much for contribution, but still there might be a need to think through how to construct the models for larger collaborations, online or offline.

Perhaps is it enough with some sort of acknowledgment to fulfill the rights of the contributors, but there might be cases where there is need for new models for cowriterships and how to share revenues and rights. I see the rise of crowds as creators as something which we will see more of.

One good example of how this is used is the Wikipedia book project in Germany. It is allowed under the Wikipedia agreement to reproduce but it has to be under the same terms as the basic texts. The revenues will however, as I have understood it, stay at the German publisher.

This will rise the need for a good model for revenue sharing in collaborative environments where the content is jointly created but the economic extraction is proprietary.

Have anyone good examples how this is done today, or has there not been any need for this yet?

Johan Örneblad

Spotify premium service to promote user base

I am getting back to Spotify and their model (hopefully) changing the music industry.

It is not new with teasers or previews offered to specific audiences. Which is why it comes pretty natural when the new album with the Swedish artists Orup and Lena Philipsson, Dubbel, is offered to premium users in Sweden almost a week before the public release date. It is interesting to see how the music industry this way, sort of at least, show that they approve the new way of distributing music.

Still, I have not seen the agreements between Spotify and the record labels, it might be so that they share the different revenue streams in some interesting way. But it might also be so, which I think to be more likely, that the record company sees Spotify more as a way to promote other sources of revenues then to strengthen the Spotify model. The service is all too young to be a trusted way of income for the record labels.

It is however interesting to see that it is only the premium service which gets the early access to the preview. Could this be a sign of that it is not enough with the commercials every sixth song to differentiate the two levels of the service? It might. But I strongly doubt that it was not thought of as a way of separating the two in the planning of the business model. It will rather be a continuous process to offer good value for the around €9 the premium service cost each month. It will otherwise be easy to switch to the ad-based level.

Next interesting part in all this is of course as I wrote above, the models of revenue streams between Spotify and the rights owners. Perhaps is it more profitable for both parties to have lots of users using the ad-based one. A hint in this direction is that they only account for that between 2 and 15 percent of the users will use the subscribed versions of the service, according to Martin Lorentzon. Then, still the question is why to offer the early release to the premium costumers?

The same article in Dagens Nyheter suggest that they believe to have 20 million users in 2 to 3 years. A quite large customer base which they have pretty good user information about, due to their music preferencies. I reckon customized commercial spots can be made with quite good accuracy based on that information which makes the community pretty valuable for advertisers. Or perhaps third party use in some way.

For now I still think it is safe to assume that Spotify will continue to offer premiums to the subscription service, in one way or another. Mostly I base this on that you as customer are more eager to use a service which you have actively decided to use. You are also probably more interested in talking to and inviteing your friends to the service as long as it offer good value. This way creating a stable base of users subscribing and becomming part of the "Spotify tribe". The same tribe inviting their friends and promoting Spotify.

But the most important part is however the diversification of the offer towards the costumers. In order to fulfill the diversification needs, there has to be differnet values assigned to the different alternatives. Which is why we will see more early releases and designated content in the premium level of Spotify.

Johan Örneblad

Is Spotify the model?

Have we now seen a shift, or at least an approach to shift, in the music industry by some recent activity? From using their IP in a protective way to actually understand the preferences of the new economy and rise above the physical carriers of music.

Spotify opened up to the public about a month ago and has since then received excited reviews. The service builds on either an ad based model or a premium monthly subscription model. Both models have been around for quite some time but the music industry has not yet really embraced them in a good way.

Earlier attempts to stop piracy with lawsuits, drm and other protective measures have obviously not been fruitful since there is almost everything you want on for example the Pirate Bay. To offer downloadable tracks for $1 each is way too much for something which is, although illegal, readily available for free.

Providing full access to almost all songs and still make money on it is a good deal for both the users and the rights holders.

Two of the main obstacles for Spotify are that they do not provide “all” music and that you need internet access. Sure, this will probably be solved in the future. Adding more content to the service must be one of the top priorities for the company. The access problem might be harder to overcome; even though it runs on 3G connection you hardly have your computer with you when running… I do assume the service will be available on mobile devices as well in the future.

The mobile market is already starting to be explored by the large manufacturers offering different deals where the handsets are bundled with music. Nokia’s Comes With Music offer is one of them and Sony Ericsson have similar deals. The device to carry the service is for me of less importance. But the breadth in the offerings of similar services will probably establish an acceptance for the model, both on the consumer side and more important on the rights holder’s side.

We are getting more and more used to that access of information is offered to us, not one at a time but instead unlimited for a specified time. This will bring new revenue models to us, either they are ad based, prepaid or in some other innovative way. We are still in the start of the new economy of access, some have come further and some are just beginning. But the main point is that you cannot any longer stay in the model of providing goods one by one. We are used to choice and instant access and will find the best and most convenient way to get it.

Perhaps Spotify will be a good step on the way.

Johan Örneblad