Archive for the 'Creativity' Category



824 views

The Uncanny Parallels Between Israeli Archeology and Innovation Challenges

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on July 27, 2008
in Creativity, Disruptive Business Models in Content and Innovation
. 0 Comments

I recently caught three interesting episodes of Simcha Jacobovici’s Naked Archaeologist on History International:

  • Episodes #5: “Real or Fake?”
  • Episode #6: “Fame & Forgery”
  • Episode #7: “Accidental Archeology”

Israeli ArcheologyEpisodes 5 and 6 are about the Israeli Antiquities markets where each player strives for the right to participate in a free market of goods within the context that the goods are authentic and that the sale was legal, or allowed by the authorities. Archaeologists are shackled by protocol and the need for proper financing. Targeted claims about forgeries can make or break a collector, archaeologists, or exhibit. Episode 7 covers the construction projects that discover ancient ruins and the chilling effects that jealous archaeologists cause when they discredit discoveries are made accidentally by non-archaeologists.

These topics are interesting because there are many parallels to the challenges facing business; in particular, the ones that rely on intellectual monopoly in the age of digital abundance and the success that can be had by amateurs. Producers of text, music, film, business methods, systems, and apparatuses are still at odds with where they want the market to be, and where it is today.

Bureaucracy Slows Progress, Maybe on Purpose
Archaeological excavations on new sites sponsored by the state or by western universities need to do everything by the book, and in accordance with the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). As a result, the excavations never find anything worthwhile. There must be funding, and it must come from the right sources. Permission must be granted, official documentation must be made, and so on. The cynical may believe that the excavations that are permitted will be fruitless, planned so there are fewer pieces in the marketplace.

Keeping the Marketplace Artificially Small
There is a perceived right by some to stifle the market. Dealers and private collectors such as Oded Golan, owner of the controversial James Ossuary. His collections rival the IAA’s own collection. The IAA, in its position as the authority, does not want such rivals. So, it goes after the best private collectors and their collections by claiming that some artifacts are either forgeries, or artifacts were purchased from tomb raiders who’s digs were not authorized by IAA. The IAA website goes at great lengths to document their victory in catching and apprehending unauthorized excavations like this man found using a metal detector in the middle of the desert. Such publications seems like a simple scare tactic. In any case, the IAA is taking moral authority over their competition in the name of propping up monopolies.

Unauthorized and Accidental Discoveries
If a tomb raider (particularly Palestinians) are caught on the streets in Israel, they can be punished. However, there is some sort of strange exemption they receive if they make into a dealer’s shop without getting caught by the authorities. Perhaps the Israeli dealers are covering for the tomb raiders who my be bringing them valuable items the dealer can resell. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by accidentally by a goat herder, and for this reason, we ignored by the larger archaeological community at first. Similar things are happening with companies that innovate in digital distribution who are at first blown off by incumbent content industries, and then sued instead of creating alliances, and then insist on doing it themselves.Siebenberg house

Jealous archaeologists discredited the discovery that are not made by one of their own, such as the 2nd Century BC mansion found under a home in Jerusalem known as the Siebenberg House. Without much interest from the archaeological community since it was not discovered by one of their own, the Siebenbergs conducted the excavation themselves over an 18 year period. Now their home rivals some museums.

With the rapid commercial development, there is a cat-and-mouse game between archaeologists and contractors. Contractors are sometimes quick to secretly destroy ancient ruins so that projects are done on time. Discoveries that do get reported usually hold up new construction projects indefinitely, such as a the construction of new walkway for the Temple Mount which uncovered remains of the first temple.

“Pirates” Push the Boundaries
As with the artifacts that are sold by tomb raiders, forgeries also compete for prestige, sales dollars and attention in the Israeli antiquities scene. Corrupt officials could deem an artifact as a forgery in order to simply take it away from or to discredit a dealer. The irony is that some older forgeries themselves are now artifacts. In the 1880’s, Moses Shapira, an entrepreneurial antiquities dealer, knew that there was a great demand in antiques for Holy Land tourists but not enough authentic pieces to go around. He and his associate, Salim al-Kari manufactured thousands of fake antiques, selling hundreds of pieces to German museums. He was eventually caught by investigative journalists and outed in London newspapers when he tried and failed to forge a piece of parchment with Bible passages. In shame, he killed himself soon after. However, this is not a cautionary tale, since today’s pirates that push the boundaries are not claiming to pass originals. The irony is that this rich history now accounts for a demand in original Shapira forgeries, as they are shown at his one-time historic home, the Ticho House in downtown Jerusalem.

Conclusion
The market for antiques is abundant. The ability to discover them and fill voids is natural. Authority and protocols keep the rights to discover and sell antiques scarce, thus creating even greater scarcity of antiques themselves. The more abundant new discoveries become, the lower the value for pieces currently owned by museums and dealers.

Anyone can think up ideas and digital technology makes it easier to execute on ideas. Unnatural limits emerge to keep incumbents in control of the marketplace, and this is a danger to us all because it limits our liberty and ability to innovate. It is not the privileged that innovate. It is the “pirates,” early adopters, and amateurs who break the rules and forge ahead by breaking barriers disguised as rules.

(top photo by heatkernel)



1,087 views

When the cost of making ideas can be zero, the fee to use an ideas should be zero

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on May 24, 2008
in Creativity and Innovation
. 2 Comments

As AgainstMonopoly and Techdirt like to say: when the marginal cost of producing a product, service or experience drops to zero, the price the market is willing to pay will drop to zero. For those that can craft ideas in their heads or on a napkin, the cost of this production is zero. However, what makes an idea valuable is the idea crafter’s ability to execute on the idea successfully. This requires scarce resources such as time, skills and maybe materials. Coming up with ideas and executing them successfully should be allowed to be mutually exclusive activities.

However, regimes such as patents put an artificial price on ideas and slow down innovation. One great example is the push-back on copyright by artists who license their works under Creative Commons. They are aware that someone else might be able to execute on their ideas better than themselves, and the license grants these permissions. Open APIs (application programming interfaces) allow 3rd party developers to use applications in ways the original application developers did not yet imagine. Execution is the natural and scarce barrier that differentiates competitors. It should not be an artificial price on ideas, methods, abstract processes, or the discovery of naturally occurring mathematics, physics, or biologies. The patents that are most dangerous to innovation are software patents. When patents first came on the scene in the US, it was intended for mechanical processes or methods, not necessarily for abstract ideas. Patents on software methods and business process are more akin to abstract ideas.

All of the money spent on patents and the barriers they creates for others is useless in “promoting the useful arts and sciences” unless you can successfully execute on them. And failure for one party to successfully execute holds everyone back, thus prohibiting the promotion of the useful arts and sciences. Your R&D resources are also a waste if you fail to execute. But this is the risk business must take. Even if you have a patent or a copyright, you can fail in the execution.

One might argue that there is a cost to making ideas, since you need to pay for R&D. This may be a leftover thinking from the industrial area. Sure, even for the development of abstract systems such as software applications and business methods, the time resource of engineers and the scarcity of their skills are necessary. But in a situation where one party has spent resources to come up with the same ideas that someone else might develop with fewer resources, and without any influence for the first party, it is as if the act of spending any resources whatsoever means that the idea deserves exclusive rights to execute. The context for protection comes from the belief that party A can “steal” ideas or the fruits of research from party B. These protectionist schemes make no room for the fact the two parties can come up with similar solutions independently, nor do that allow for the ability for some to ideate at no cost, and there is an automatic assumption that they are “anti-market”. It is as if the shareholder value for a couple individuals or firms is more important than the health and well-being of the world over. Or, the appearance that if the executioner is following protocol is going to covers some of their liability for failing and the false stigma of failure.



1,089 views

Great Design Spoils Us and That’s A Good Thing

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on May 16, 2008
in Creativity and Innovation
. 3 Comments

Great design along with great user feedback and iteration makes me intolerant of bad design, even when there is no alternative.

In the web app space, new entrants continue to appear, competing with each other and incumbents, each tweaking their strategy slightly. One thing that will separate each app is the quality of the user experience and user interface. Thus, users of these apps are increasingly spoiled. The best-in-class app emerges in a Darwinian competition. The web app space has to be the most fast-paced example of this paradigm, but it could be true of other products, services, or experiences who’s design can be constantly re-iterated.

I know I am spoiled. I have Google apps (search included) at my fingertips. I can use 37Signal apps to communicate complex ideas around my projects. I can communicate back and forth with web power users in an instant from almost any location without e-mail by using services like Twitter.

However, as I look at other apps I have no choice to use such as the web interface for my bank, government websites, or the CRM software at my last job, I am very intolerant of old, bad software. I expect that this software should not make me think. I only want to think about how to solve hard problems once, and then have have a software solve the problem when it comes up. In other words, I think software should do the repetitive mental heavy lifting.

When a great design ecosystem along with a great feedback channel to the designers and developers is available, we become even more spoiled. But I don’t think the spoilage is a bad thing. It creates an awareness for good design. It creates an awareness for the need for UI and UX designers. It creates awareness of the advantages of user feedback channels. It creates an awareness that rapidly releasing new code helps designers make better choices.



516 views

What is better: SEO or SMO?

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on April 22, 2008
in Creativity and Disruptive Business Models in Content
. 0 Comments

You can spend engineering resources on fighting spam like Matt Cutts and team, or you could spend talent resources on writing and curtaining content like Jason Calacanis, Jimmy Wales, and passionate bloggers.

Likewise, you can spend engineering resources to make sure you rank well in search engines with SEO, or you can create value for your users/customers by allowing them to poll you presence with a social media strategy like blogging, Twitter, curated bookmarks, teaching them like Brian Clark at Copyblogger, or helping them kick ass like Kathy Sierra, until they are compelled to become a paying customer.

Is one better than the other? Those that made their name with one may downplay the other, but that is human nature. It is better to be a good sales person than a strategy picker.

The odd thing is that SEOs see SMO as an SEO strategy, and SMOs see SEO as a dying strategy. Let’s just call it all evolving web strategy.

If you are in town for SMX Social Media, we can discuss this further. Look for me at the bar at the Westin. Add me on Twitter if you can’t find me.



333 views

The Networks Effects of Creating Value Networks with Derivative Creative Works

Published
by
Nick Dynice
on January 17, 2008
in Creativity and Disruptive Business Models in Content
. 3 Comments

There is some talk of Fair Use reform to define it as: “work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original, is fair use.”

So, what are some examples of adding value? Let’s just throw some assumptions out there.
• Free redistribution against the author’s will, aka “piracy“: this is not even covered by Fair Use. It it can ad value, to the original work, but this thinking is at odd with most works’ authors in todays’ IP-sacred climate. It serves the undershot
customers of works.
• Derivative Works: depending on the nature of the use, it could add value.
• Parody: Parody is the use of a work to comment on something else. This is usually protected under fair use, but does not necessary add value to the work.

Value flows in two directions between these 4 entities:
• Original Works’ Authors
• Original Works
• Derivative Works’ (licensed or unauthorized) Authors
• Derivative Works (licensed or unauthorized)

Derivative Works Value Network

The problem arises when one profits form another and that is viewed as unfair. And fairness as seen in a reproducible psychological experiment called the ultimatum game, the need for fairness and entitlement makes for illogical business decisions.

Original Authors Add Value to their Original Works and vice versa
This example is pretty simple. The author creates the work, the work has value. If the work becomes popular, it is attributed back to the author. If the work is bad, the author’s value may decrease. If the author is obscure, it may not matter. Steven King’s great books helped to make him valuable in the book publishing market. And when he releases a new book, people take notice.

Original Authors and their Original Works Add Value to Derivative Authors and their Derivative Works’ and vice versa
The originator’s work can create a value network for his or her works, and the works of others. Suzann Vega’s song “Tom’s Diner” was originally an acapella. It was then remixed without permission by DNA Disciples, adding cache to Susan Vega as an artist. Conversely, when someone crates a new art form (such as the remix), others benefit by being successful in that art form. In other words, the network effects of the many can raise the status of a few.

Mashup artist Girl Talk samples as many as 20 songs into a single 3-minute song. These mashups may remind people of the original authors who are valued because of the original works, and they may wish to listen to or even purchase the originals. Girl Talk’s innovative approached helped to spotlight himself and his “illegal art” (since no licensing was obtained and is therefore only available for free via p2p networks).

Derivative Authors Add Value to their Derivative Works, and vice versa
This is the situation that Original authors view as unfair, and causes all kinds of conflicts. In order to exercises this option, it must be:
• created illegally, by using works that are copy written and without getting permission
• created by obtaining permission and licensing in an “any use is commercial use” assumption
• created by using works that are in the public domain
• created using works in a way in which its Creative Commons license permits.
There is a great experiment going on by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. He as started the Nine Inch Nails Remix community where fans can download multi track versions of songs, create a remix, and then upload the remixes for fans to listen to and download. Most of the tracks from the last album are available as multiple tracks from the site, but some are available on the recently released remix album. So, eager remixers must buy this album to get access to remixing some of these other tracks. The community can rate and aggregate mixes, spotlighting the best remixes, each who has their own profile, similar to a social networking site.

Derivative Authors and their Derivative Works Add Value to Original Works
No matter which one of the scenarios listed above is in play, this type of value creation may occur. Famous original paintings are worth as much as they are partly because of reprints and photographs that pay homage to them. Even within the range of a single artist, some paintings are worth more than others not only because they are higher quality or more esthetically pleasing, but because these traits are a reason for their reproductions, and because people see the reproductions, the value of the original increases. This was especially the case prior to copyright regimes. This lead to the spread of the bible and helped to spur the print industry at the time of the invention of the printing press.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,