You may have seen some of the recent news coverage regarding Prince’s decision to sue YouTube (among many others).  As I understand it, Prince’s basic argument is that his art is being stolen, and as the artist, he deserves to be paid for his art.  The lawsuit apparently started with takedown requests when Prince discovered video from a recent concert had ended up on-line.

But here’s the thing.  Prince’s assumption that the "illegal" videos are somehow leading to a loss of income is a classic example of "black and white" thinking.  It’s almost always stupid to be binary in your thinking (I would say "always" but that would be binary…).

A far better approach would be shades of grey… or if you want to stick with the binary/mathematical analogy, be continuous rather than discrete: there’s a lot of variety between zero and one.

I know I’m not the first to make this point, and this is hardly the first time this kind of legal action.  But this particular example resonated with me.  And since this blog has obviously changed the world on several occasions  (exhibit A, exhibit B), I figured it was worth a shot at explaining to Prince, and the fellows like him, exactly why this is incredibly stupid thinking.

Not only is it stupid, it is costing Prince money.  And here’s why…

My musical tastes are pretty wide ranging.  I even own a Prince album (not telling which one).  I heard he was touring, but my level of interest in his work is not even vaguely high enough for me to buy a concert ticket for $100+.  I don’t like all of his work, but I do think (a) he’s a good musician (technically speaking) and (b) he’s been pretty innovative in his career.

Although my general level of interest is low, I might have checked out a video of a concert just to see what he was up to.  If I had enjoyed it, there’s a good chance I would have listened to his more recent work, or a compilation album.  And that could, if I liked what I heard, have led to to a purchase.

Odds of me buying anything Prince-related after seeing a YouTube video:  1:100.  Odds of me buying anything without the video: exactly and precisely ZERO.

Now let’s pretend I represent "normal" (yeah, I know…).  There are a quadrillion or so folks on the net, of whom at least 42 must be vague Prince fans.  Do the math: 42 times zero, is definitely zero.  42 times a tiny fraction is more than zero.

It’s really just that simple.  I just wish more Artists and the entertainment industry as a whole would wake up and realize this so we can get on with our lives, and maybe buy a lot less of a many many more things…

And as a footnote, I think any time something looks binary, you’re almost definitely looking at it wrong…  But the person that most needs to grasp that concept is definitely not reading this blog…

Categories: Old Posts
661 Comment »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2007/09/17/shades-of-grey-why-prince-is-dead-wrong/Shades+of+Grey...++Why+Prince+is+dead+wrong.2007-09-17+13%3A00%3A00NickN

A number of folks have asked me which blogs I read, so if you look over on the left hand side of this blog, you’ll see a shiny new blogroll.

Most of the ones on the list are probably not a surprise.  There are others I should be reading, but I forced myself to cap the amount of time I spend reading each day — nothing gets done otherwise…

Categories: Old Posts
65No Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2007/09/16/blogroll-ill-give-you-blogroll/Blogroll%3F++I%27ll+give+you+blogroll...2007-09-17+04%3A55%3A32NickN

I was trading emails with Tony earlier today — he’s someone I’ve known for many years and even founded a company with.  Along with a number of other things, in response to my Bigtrak post, he mentioned a toy his brother had: the Evel Knievel Stunt Bike.

I had one too.  And DAMN was it cool.  Fast, dangerous (if pointed in the right direction), battery-free and pretty much indestructable (much more so than Mr. Knievel himself in fact).

For those of you that grew up in the era of all electronic toys, you missed out. 

The bike attached to the red and blue base.  On the side of the base you can’t see was a large handle.  You cranked the handle for as long as you dared and that charged the friction motor in the bike.  Then you let it fly…

Here’s the diagram from the original instructions.  And it really would have made this jump…

I distinctly remember jumping mine up and down flights of stairs, on concrete driveways, over a variety of objects (including my long suffering younger sister) and not once did Evel fail me…

In the pre-computer age (practically in the pre-battery age for that matter) this was THE cutting edge.

In even better news, brought to you via the tubes of the internets, a replica (allegedly made from the original molds) is available on Amazon.

Thank you Mr. Kenievel — not only did you inspire a lifelong interest in physics, you made a damn fine toy that contributed many happy hours to my childhood…

Categories: Old Posts
64No Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2007/09/14/do-no-evel/Do+no+Evel...2007-09-15+00%3A27%3A33NickN

Posting will be quite light over the next week or so as I’ll be visiting beta sites and sitting down with potential investors.  The rest of this week is gone as I’m deeply buried in Powerpoint polishing and rehearsal (and laundry).

For those of you interested in our general area of data management (yes, I promise to be more specific about what we do very soon), the Aberdeen Group just released a rather interesting report.  It’s a free download in exchange for your email address, and quite an interesting read.

Thanks to Allan for the link…

P.s.  Happy Birthday Monkey!

Categories: Old Posts
63No Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2007/09/13/updates/Updates...2007-09-13+19%3A51%3A00NickN

Well, more wet than sloppy.

This is an interestingly new use for water — thanks to Tony for sending the link.

Be sure to watch more than just the first few seconds to get the whole story…

Categories: Old Posts
62No Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2007/09/11/sloppy-advertising/Sloppy+Advertising...2007-09-11+19%3A34%3A56NickN