I've also got to sing the praises of WebFWD — my organization, CASH Music, was part of the first class and it was invaluable to us. Great people, continued support, and an experience that helped shape the organization. Highly recommend you share your open project ideas and apply.
Doesn't take long at all to find out that the deals struck with majors included not a decent percentage, but actually ownership. Ownership means access to a revenue stream — good for labels, bad for artists who don't receive royalties on investment revenue.
Go beyond that one Google search, you can quickly learn that indie labels — the folks who win more than half the Grammys — don't get the same arrangement. So the music one their labels actually subsidizes the competition. They're not all that happy about that.
And lastly: artists. You can listen to them. Plenty are outspoken. For every Metallica getting onstage with Spotify there are many others essentially saying that they receive nothing — and that makes sense because the payouts are designed to work at scale, not at the level most working musicians operate.
Saying all this without judgement. I think the streaming market could be a good one for artists if it were more geared to driving direct purchases — but thinking about it as the answer is a problem. It's the start of exposure, like radio used to be, not the end goal.
See I think it is the end goal and it's going to replace CDs and iTunes really soon. I personally don't like Spotify but Rdio and Mog are incredible. And to have the major labels pulling the strings, which sounds like is happening, is probably a really bad thing.
I understand the perspective that operations and growth challenges for a nonprofit are generally the same, but there are some pretty huge differences too.
My own organization is a nonprofit startup. Our 501(c)(3) application took four and a half years in review. During that time we had no final status so rule out most foundational support and as a nonprofit there's no equity investment either. Essentially we had to scrape for what help we could find little by little without much to offer in return. Luckily we're in a high-profile space (music) so we could return enough PR while building.
The IRS eventually denied our application for status. It's not uncommon, especially in the open-source space, but luckily we now have a major law firm representing us pro bono, we hold credible domestic nonprofit status (at the state level) and we've build up enough of a reputation. We're still cut off from most grant-making, but we're finding ways to be creative.
My point is that the administration of the organization itself is no trivial matter, and it's especially difficult to carve out a space for yourself as a nonprofit if you don't fit a traditional nonprofit mold. (And innovation in the nonprofit space is vital — both in the models and the regulation. Sadly the latter lags behind.)
Not a complaint at all, but I'd definitely argue that the differences are many. And for nonprofit startups without a 501(c)(3) you're going to face a challenge, even if you're supported by a fiscal sponsor. It's similar waters for sure, but a whole different ocean.
Open source by itself isn't a tax-exempt action, but for many it's an important part of releasing free software for the public benefit. Services for the public benefit that are open to all can generally be framed as tax-exempt activity, but the lawyers at the IRS who review 501(c)(3) applications are tax attorneys, not software/tech specialists so a lot of confusion ensues.
Our review came back arguing that providing open source software is not only non-exempt, but actually provides a competitive advantage in the market because some companies would be paying for the same service, therefore they are at a disadvantage — even though they would have the same access to that free software as anyone.
Talking to other nonprofit directors and experts it seems like the arguments around open source are inconsistent at best. It makes sense because the IRS generally fast-tracks more common arguments and passes off specialty cases (think software) to individual reviewers. As enough case-law builds up they'll provide a more consistent decision based on internal protocols.
Out of the scope of your question, but the end result for us is that we're doing a bunch of legal wrangling, establishing more outreach and education efforts (which were always part of our mission) and getting ready to re-apply by year's end. It's not unrealistic to think a full ten years will pass from the start of the organization to the point where we get 501(c)(3) status.
So are we saying for a commercial developer to legally distribute themes and not open the source code they'd have to basically build their own platform ala wordpress.com? Seems like that would basically only be using the GPL as a tool for monopoly. Does that mean Thesis and Genesis and these toolkits are also violating GPL since they are not openly available?
Really, well where is the publicly available code for Genesis then? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't find it in Google. Isn't the most basic premise of the GPL that source code should be publicly available? I don't see anywhere on the StudioPress site where this code is posted. This whole argument by WP is bringing up a lot of questions about whether or not I want to continue to use WP as a development platform in the future.
If you want the source code from Genesis, you buy the theme. The GPL doesn't mean you can't charge for a product. It does mean if you buy that product you get the source code and you get the right to use, change and redistribute that code.
At that point, you have the right to distribute it in any way you want -- provided you aren't restricting StudioPress's rights. That means you could actually resell the same theme for a lower price if you wanted and StudioPress would bitch and moan but couldn't legally do anything about it.
That happens with Linux. Red Hat sells their product to clients. They also offer up the uncompiled source code. Others, CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc., take that code and compile it and distribute it for free. The advantage of buying from Red Hat is support and fastest access to newest stuff.
There is absolutely nothing stopping me from buying a StudioPress theme and putting a download link to it on my site, or even hosting that content on Github. It might be poor taste, but there'd be nothing against StudioPress's rights with me doing that.
My biggest issues with GPL was it was written in an age of traditionally compiled languages. It wasn't written for the nuance of web language and the context of what is distribution, what is complete, what is compiled is different and to me, not as cut and dried.
Most of the commercial WordPress theme shops (outside of Envato) do run fully GPL shops. They do this not because of altruism but because Matt and WordPress.org strong armed them into making the decision to change around 2009/2010. Since then, it's become common.
The reason you don't see people bitching about giving up their redistribution rights or the rights on their images and CSS is because most people who buy WordPress themes aren't on HN, they buy a theme, customize it, use it. They don't think about, "oh, I cold resell this same theme and undercut someone else."
The GPL does not require source code to be "publicly available".
IMO the basic premise of the GPL is that users who receive the program/app/whatever may also get the source code, modify it, and further distribute under the same license.
Section 3 of GPL2 states:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Most do "a" but "b" is acceptable and Section 1 even allows for charging a fee for the source code.
You're confused about how gplv2 works, Genesis gives you the source code and you are free to distribute it if you'd like, or alter it, but they don't have to distribute it for free.
No, the premise of the GPL is that if the software is distributed to you, then you have a right to the source code. This is very different from the code having to be publicly available to anyone.
There is, of course, nothing stopping anyone from buying the source code, and making it publicly available.
GPL allows you to sell access, but does not permit you to restrict the distribution from that point forward. Essentially, it's legal to re-sell the same bundle.
Effectively closing the source with a loophole and removing user choice. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it knocks the "for the good of WP users" argument they use down a few pegs.
Well the thing with printing is that the K part of CMYK is actually not the darkest black, yet it's 100% K that's used to print a book.
Fully saturated rich black (100% C+M+Y+K) is usually a little too jarring against a bright stock — take a look at most high quality books and notice that the stock is off-white and the ink isn't nearly as rich as #000 black on screen.
I think the original point as a lot of merit. Staying even just a little bit further from #000 or even pure grays (try #335, etc) can give more even tones and keep contrast high while reducing fatigue.
You're right about comparing art to print though — different goals, even though the conclusion is valid.
Revenue models are all actually different, and kind of messy. In the US, radio pays out royalties for publishing but not for performance/mechanical. That means the rightsholder for publishing gets paid, but not the performer of the piece. (Aretha Franklin gets nothing from radio plays.) It's an antiquated law based on the idea that radio is doing promotional work for the artist (most other countries pay both.)
Pandora pays a compulsory streaming rate. Similar to radio they're allowed to play what they like as long as it's not on-demand. Hence you can only skip so many times, and you can't request a specific song. They pay both publishing and performance royalties so rightsholders for the publishing and recording get paid.
Spotify, as an on-demand streaming service, has to negotiate direct deals with rightsholders to use the music. So when you see them paying out a lower rate than Pandora it's because they've traded equity to major labels in exchange for better rates — a very clever way for majors to get money directly from subscribers without needing to distribute it to artists. Independent labels and musicians also need to authorize Spotify, but have less negotiating power so they don't get ownership stakes and have to choose to be completely absent from the system or take the rate offered them.
Different payout rates for free versus paid users, which also varies from country to country based on negotiated royalty rates. I'd also assume exchange rates come into play.
I know Dan and a few of the others involved in this project and their passion is both amazing and warranted. Data is becoming and indispensable tool in the modern newsroom, and it makes sense that the pairing of seasoned journalists and creative developers is key to uncovering new stories today.
Pretty exciting stuff, and I can't wait to see what they do next.
