One of the biggest impacts the internet has had on creativity and business is the expanding discussion of copyright. Chuck Olsen got me thinking about this when he posted this video interview with Mark Hosler of Negativeland. Mark has helped CC develop “Sampling”: licenses which allow us to do what many want to do naturally – hum another’s tune for a few bars, make a collage from magazines, etc. and then be able to sell that should a buyer come along, without having to go back and pay the “original” creator.

It seems much of discussion sorts people into two groups: the big (bad) corporations and the small (good) artists. I am going to sort by the spiritual versus the psychological perspective.

From the spiritual perspective, we own nothing and it all comes to us/through us from somewhere. If we lived exclusively in this world, everything would be free and there would be free-flowing transmission of ideas and compensation, and no one would live at another’s expense. I believe we are spiritual beings and all of this is true at the core. In the spirit world, there is no “matter” though so we do not face the daily challenges of food and shelter, nor do we create actual works. Everything is unlimited. However, we have chosen to incarnate.

So that means we are also psychological/physical beings, which is to acknowledge that we live in a world defined in part by limits and boundaries. (My soul might be capable of anything, but I still have to get on a plane or boat if I am going to attend Vloggercom.)

Mark’s arguments are very appealing to me, as he embraces without fear this unbridled freedom that is an aspect to our spiritual nature. But it has been my experience that those who want money and power will do whatever it takes to get more of the same. They seem to have an advantage at managing the limits and boundaries. Having copyright restrictions can protect the solo artist against those who would reap benefit “illicitly.” Mark seems to have a strong opinion against corporations and has helped develop a CC license that allows sampling for all but re-use in advertising. I think this is an improvement but advertising per se is not “bad” it is just that it has been used so overbearingly. And he is selling works that are created from others’ works, without sampling licenses granted, not to mention advertising them on a web site.

I believe both the spiritual and the psychological/physical perspectives are real and true. But knowing when one applies vs. the other is the tricky part. The spiritual realm creates an amazing sense of freedom to do as we please. The psychological/physical realm creates consequences that can inform our future choices. I would really like to live as if none of this matters yet I am afraid to be taken advantage of and I want to have the money to live comfortably. I want to live my life with as few discrepancies as possible.

A copyright serves notice that people cannot use the “stuff I created” without asking first. In a way it is common courtesy. However people can view a copyright notice not as a closed door, but instead an opportunity to start a conversation. At least with me that is. The copyright simply says, let’s talk first. We may even be able to help each other get more of what we want. (I have out takes and you might have a network…)

If I don’t really own any of it because it came to me from the great divine, then it is a free for all. Which might not be bad. You make something from anything, and sell it for as much as you can and each person gets to decide if they want to buy it. An intriguing idea, but I’m not yet ready to embrace it.

I have contributed a lot in the past to budding organizations, only to have the people “in charge” take my and others’ creations and literally make millions on them without compensation. This was in part my own naivete: my desire to want to collaborate without having to deal with the legal bs. Or was I wanting to play in the spiritual realm when in fact the others were playing in the psychological/physical realm? I’ve had a hard time dealing with the feelings of both being burned and stupid.

But as always, I appreciate all the thoughtful and passionate people contributing ideas.

I had a dream last night in which I was in a car with other adults going to a very adult event like a classical music concert. For some reason, we stopped near a school. There was a boy in the car in front of us who was hit in the head with a hard baseball.

He slumped over the wheel. No one seemed to even notice, but me. I got out of the car and went over to him. He was not alert, so I asked him, “Are you OK? Please say something if you can hear me.” He said “My back really hurts.”

I tried to yell at the other people in my party, asking them to go in the school and get help. Everyone ignored me. For some reason, I did not think to call 911 myself. I was upset that no one else was helping.

At first, I thought this was a young boy, say 9-10 years old. But if he were driving the car, that would make him 16 at least.

I have these beliefs that appear relevant to this dream:

• We are all safe and the dramas being played out here are the ones we want to play, on some level, however unconscious of that we may be.
• Adults are capable of managing themselves. I am not responsible for taking care of another adult. After all, I cannot possibly know what each person’s soul is up to.
• By the age of 10 or so, a person is capable of surviving on their own. It may not be easy, but it is doable.
• I am free to offer my help when I want. No one else is required to take it or have to offer their help in the same situation.
• Offering help can be construed as an interruption or even invasion of someone else’s space. For all I know, they wanted to see how far they could suffer or they were just on the verge of figuring it out themselves, or any other number of possibilities.

I am reminded of how incensed I am when religious crusaders come to my door, thinking I am the equivalent of the boy in the car — needing to be rescued away from whatever into the arms of Jesus.

And yet, I truly enjoy helping. So I have learned to adopt a mantra, “Make ‘em beg” whereby I don’t impose myself but rather wait for others to ask for help. Yes, this is tricky because for many, asking for help is such a hot button for their neuroses. (Think men and travel directions.)

It is also tricky for me in business because I often want to help our clients understand things better or know about options to help them grow their business. Some really appreciate this, and say that is why they like having us as vendors. Others do not. Or they do, but only if it is free to them. So figuring this out in the business relationships seems to take a little bit of time.

The question I am pondering today is how to keep weaning myself from intrusive helping while still being available to help when it is mutually wanted? I realize that even I am not always in the mood to help either.

And I am also creating more ideas for “Beach Walks with Rox” videos. I like talking, I do go to the beach every morning and attempt to commune with my soul. I imagine that others might be interested in that too. A perfect aspect of a video podcast is that I can just do it, without targeting or involving anyone else (except my beloved camera man Shane). It is a completely “opt-in” situation for whomever want to watch the shows.

Just like those adults in my dream. None of them were interested in responding to my pleas to help the boy. That is independent of the fact that I did want to offer help.

1. Maybe I don’t have to knee-jerk respond every time I see someone in perceived “trouble.” I could wait for them to ask.
2. If I do decide I want to offer help, that is my deal, and no one else’s.

It’s often said how the internet is making many arenas more of an “an even playing field.” Customers have more power, companies have less, in many situations. I think the transfer of power is a direct correlation to the transfer of knowledge that is taking place.

And being that we are smack dab in the middle of a knowledge-based economy, the way that we seek, share, and disseminate knowledge is going through big change.

It used to be teacher had the power and the student was beholden, at least until such point that the student could take on the teacher intellectually. Now that we can share information rather easily, (although the NYTimes is about to be investigated by the FBI for writing about the secret Bush wiretapping policies), there are great opportunities brewing.

On a personal level, I was angrily accused by a dear and treasured client this past week for being condescending in how I was managing her project. It was a hard blow to my ego for sure. And I could make all sorts of proclamations about how and why I have tightened the reigns on this particular job. But she was right about one thing: I did have thoughts now and then of surprise, at actually how little she knew about certain things. Surprise because she is very bright. She is very engaged. She interacts with her project a lot. But darnit, there are some web fundamentals she just has not yet grasped. This surprise has slowly turned into irritation, mainly because I saw more time I would be putting in to the project to educate her on these issues, and two, because I did not know how I would bill for that. (She is on a fixed price job that does not include side trips to explain how things work.)

I find it really hard sometimes to explain to a really bright person what it is they don’t know. A lot of us, myself included, can get very attached to our smarts. But the point here now is that the subtleties in my energy triggered an avalanche of resentment in her. So it’s my job to bring her and the project back in off the ledge.

What I am working on this weekend is to turn the table and practice thinking peer to peer. What is it that she can teach me in this moment? How could I have handled the situation differently? How can I keep my belief — there are just things she does not know, despite her protestations — without feeling irritated by her resistance to acknowledge that and/or pay to learn it?

I am a firm believer in speaking the truth. In my experience, much more often than not people do indeed want the truth, though they may react negatively to it at first. But when delivering the truth, I now want to have the energy of learning, of student, so that it does not come across “one up or one down” but is a curious (not critical) exploration. A mutual sharing of observations. Delivered on my part with courtesy and respect. And hopefully reciprocated. I can challenge myself to see how neutral I can get my own energy, and then watch and see if that gets me a different response.

Go figure. Blogging is where the action is.

We are having a lot of fun at Technorati.

I think the faster we can move away from all or nothing thinking, the faster the marketplace can be reshaped into a more equitable power relationship between buyers and sellers, and hence between the exchange of value. For me it’s not so much that free is more pure, and therefore better. It’s that free was a bold and rebellious statement against the propriety, bully, and rigid business prcatices of Microsoft et al. In time though, to be all or nothing, regardless if it is all free or all bloated profits, to me will just maintain a concentration of wealth. The power may be shifting, but if the money is still held by a relative few, then they will almost have a natural leg up in the marketplace.

I think the good news is that technology enables new careers, new relationships, along with new products and services, and it is starting to bring faster rewards to those who take the chance to do what they love and trust that the money will follow. I am pretty imaginative but I do not yet see a future where money holds no value or power. For now, most of us are still engaged in the process of trading products and services for a paycheck and vice versa.

As a Berkeley grad who has not abandoned all her youthful idealism, I love the possibilities that are being presented by and to the many budding entrepreneurs. Small businesses face cash flow issues on a daily basis. We can’t do everything for free, because we are not collecting a salary on the side to buy food and pay rent. We only get paid when we deliver something of value to our customers. With small companies, the line is much more blurred between the business and the individual. We are both, all day long. We cannot hide behind a large corporate structure and blame unpopular pricing or policies on some other department. If we are not successful, we can’t write paychecks to anyone, including ourselves.

The days of extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few Bill Gateses, Michael Eisners, and Phil Knights, I see (slowly) coming to an end. There is no way that any of those men is 1 – 6 billion “times” smarter or more valuable than the rest of us. Technology is leveling the playing the field. The luck that was bestowed on a few – though often interpreted as genius – now is spreading around more.

I am grateful to all of the employed people who can write and contribute free code while at their regular jobs – a mini-subversion in itself. But to me it is not a sustainable model. I am more radical than that. I imagine the recirculation of Bill Gates’ $65 billion of accumulated wealth, and it blows my mind what we “foot soldiers on the street” could create with it!

And for any hard core capitalists who may be reading this, I do not mean redistribution by handout, but by fair compensation for a day’s work well done, a good idea contributed to the pool. One of Bill’s ideas or hours is just not that much more valuable than one of mine, and I don’t see why he should be paid so much more for one of his. I actually think he should be penalized at this point as his products have single-handedly stymied day-to-day business and created a huge opportunity for spyware, viruses, and worms! When will the marketplace appropriately adjust for that?

Blogs/people that inspired this post:

Citizen’s Media

Rejoice! The software is pure again!

Ryan Ozawa – an original web diarist

Mary Schmidt’s blog

Click here to leave a comment.

There’s a new blogger on the block. And it’s a woman! Not that that matters, but it somehow does. I mean there are plenty of women in technology, yet the math still works out that there are far more men as bloggers, podcasters, coders, etc.

Mary Schmidt and I met at a tech venture capital meeting a few years ago. She became a client of ours at Bare Feet Studios, and we have also become friends with a joint membership in the rant and rave club.

I’m betting she’ll make a great blogger. Why? She’s got loads of opinions, brains to match, and (probably) enough time to keep it alive. As for me, I just get to take credit for being the first to link to Mary!

Visit her brand spankin’ new blog here:
Mary Schmidt

We the people are uniformly and without exception, living on the planet with the ability to make mistakes.

Business is run by humans. So by straightforward linear thought, businesses are not infallible either. If anything, the larger the biz, the more oportunity for glitch! Mistakes happen. So why do people become so indignant?

My flight at SFO (san francisco) has just been cancelled and we have been moved to a new gate and a new time. Without doubt this is irritating. It means for me, and many others, delays, missed connections, and possibly even missed events. I am just in from HNL (honolulu) on the red eye, with a total of 4 hours of semi-snooze in the upright position. I will land in ABQ (albuquerque) without time to shower and nap before my event this evening, unlike my original routing.

The cause? The plane is newly painted, and the rear door is painted shut! What a tale. The young and pompous cannot repeat enough, “How lame!” The gate agent whispered to me later, “I hope the painter doesn’t get fired.” To which I replied, “Yes, unless this is the 6th time s/he’s done it!”

This cost United a pretty penny. I am confident they are handling the problem, and don’t need my indignance to spur them into action.

Here’s to hoping I don’t make too many “dumb” mistakes this week myself. If I do, just remember, I’ll be fixing them straight away.

We have been working on a large site (1000 pp +) re-do for 3 years. We had design approval and were 85% completed about 12 months ago, when the client decided she didn’t like it.

So we started over.

Round 2: we had design approval. “Yes, much better.” Even more cool, in that 12 months, even new and more robust CMS software came available. Woohoo! Thanks for being cranky, round 1.

Then we spend the better part of 8-9 months developing the site. The client has been busy, over-worked, travelling, on holiday. Back on the job last week, she gets a sneak as we are putting the polishing touches on it. We are loving it. And our wonderful client?

“It looks like a CPA built it.” Uggh. Please don’t ask us to start over again. Please!

So I ranted. To my partner, not the client. Of course.

But it was designed by a hot young guy in Portland who does work for Nike, Intel, Spin, Hooked on Phonics!

But we employed the latest research on how users look for info on a web page.

But you asked for it to be very refined, minimal, elegant…so the content – the people you support – will be the attention-grabbers!

But but but. But we love this client. They have given us opportunities to develop something that is superb, that stands out, that looks different. They want the best – and isn’t that what we service providers dream about?

So we went back to the drawing board, and after a mere 3 days, came up with a subtle tweak to the concept. Damn if it doesn’t absolutely take the design over the top! Energetically, it adds that final “aha” to the visual experience. It’s true “feng shui” for web sites. (Don’t try to steal that. My friend and colleague Michael C has already written the book.)

I love you Ms. Client. Thank you for being cranky, even though you didn’t know how to fix what you thought was wrong. Your holding out for the best, has pushed us to delve deeper and the result is wonderful in our eyes. Thanks for being cranky, round 2.

I am almost looking forward to round 3. In the transition, I love cranky clients.