It’s been over a decade since Napster first launched, and although there have been steps forward in policing of intellectual property, new distribution deals and other major changes to the Internet, the fact remains that people steal a lot of stuff online.  Some may argue that sharing files or piracy isn’t stealing, but really, it is (of course with the exception fo file sharing of material that is approved for sharing). The simple fact is there are a lot more people online now, and it’s still easy to access unlicensed copies of copyright-protected material.

The point is to keep this truth in mind as you decide how you’re running your business.  Until there’s some sort of serious crack down by the government, or people suddenly have a major change of heart, they’re going to be taking your stuff without your permission – not everyone, of course, but a lot of people.

Some people who “steal” online do it knowingly, and maliciously – but that’s not the case for everyone (and I’m willing to bet those “thieves” are actually a very small minority).  The bigger reason behind this is that you, as a copyright holder, probably aren’t giving them another option.  The Internet generation has been trained to expect things instantly – and when they don’t get it instantly, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.  They’re an ingenious bunch – just take a look at most of the more notorious examples of services that have been scrutinized for distributing copyright materials without a license.  Names like Napster, YouTube, Scribd, Docstoc, Grooveshark, and even The Pirate Bay.

The thing that all of these services have in common, what really drove their popularity, was not simply that what they had to offer was free, but rather what they had to offer.  They had content available that people actually wanted to be able to access.  Not only this, but they had pretty much everything people would want to access.

Hulu has been successful so far, in terms of visitors and in terms of monetization, but only to a point.  Their ultimate weakness is in not having all content available from all the television networks.  Not only this, but the content they do have is still somewhat limited (for instance, FOX only allows a few episodes of Glee to be broadcast).   For the rest of that content, what are people supposed to do?  Not everyone wants to buy the entire series of Glee on DVD or wait to have it delivered via Netflix (it’s on “Very Long Wait” right now, by the way) – but FOX isn’t giving any other option.  Hulu has shown there are ways to monetize the content – and based on the successes of services like iTunes, we know people are willing to pay for content they want to access.

The problem here is that the copyright holders are unwilling to license the channels that allow people to access the content they want to in a way they prefer.  If you’re a musician and you don’t want to license your music to online services, you need to accept the fact that people are going to find other ways to access it that might not match with the way you’re trying to force them. If you’re a publisher and don’t want to license eBooks, people are going to start looking for the places where they can get the books they want anyway.  People want immediate access, and they’re willing to pay for it – but the second you start telling them “you’ll have to buy the physical copy” is the second you’ve very likely turned a customer into a potential pirate.

Don’t let ideologies or past behavior guide your future. People’s buying behaviors are changing, but if people value what you have to offer they’re likely to pay for it.  You just need to let them access it through methods they prefer.

People are probably going to steal your stuff online. Remember that, and try to give them a better alternative.

This is because, on February 12, 2010, the Department of Justice announced a “New Intellectual Property Task Force as Part of Broad IP Enforcement Initiative.” (Read the press release)

As a firm supporter of intellectual property rights, this is great news – especially in our current economy.  As it becomes more and more clear that the old economy based on the industrial revolution (read: factories) is dying, it’s becoming increasingly important for our citizens and government to understand that the biggest and most valuable export from the United States is not any physical product we create, but rather Intellectual Property.

According to a recent report from the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), core copyright industries accounted for $889 billion (6.44% of GDP) between 2006-2007. Foreign sales and exports from core copyright industries were also higher than other industry sectors. As of 2007, foreign sales were about $126 billion.  Expanding out from just the core copyright industries (theatrical films, TV, DVDs, business and entertainment software, books, music and sound recordings), the value of total copyright industries in 2007 was $1.52 trillion, or 11.05% of U.S. GDP.

“Americans produce more technologies, more brands, more creative works and more innovation than any other nation on Earth,” said Victoria Espinel, the U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator in the official DoJ release. “President Obama is committed to ensuring that the value created by American workers and enjoyed by communities around the world is protected. The Justice Department’s new task force will play a critical role in supporting the Administration’s ongoing efforts to protect American intellectual property and the millions of jobs that depend on it.”

The basic truth here is this: our economy depends on Intellectual Property.  We’re a country filled wth brilliant and creative individuals, and this is where we are going to continue to grow.  Without enforcement of Intellectual Property rights, we’re at risk of a much larger economic collapse than we’ve ever imagined – as we’d be destroying our own future.

“Theft of intellectual property does significant harm to our economy and endangers the health and safety of our citizens,” said Vice President Biden. “This administration is committed to stronger and stricter enforcement of intellectual property rights, and this new task force is a step in the right direction.”

I agree completely.  Please take the time to think about this yourself, rather than just have a knee-jerk reaction about how much you might dislike “big content.”

The government is actually doing something to protect our future here, and that’s commendable.

If you don’t know what a Roomba is, the basic idea is this: it’s a robot that vacuums for you.  (Scoobas mop). Yeah, it doesn’t take too much work to vacuum.  But what a Roomba does is quite a bit more than that – it’s the things you don’t really think about when you think of vacuuming.  Of course the actual “work” part of vacuuming is gone – but the additional benefits are where these little robots really shine.

Roombas are small in height, which means they go under all your furniture – no more moving the couch to clean up the cat hair that’s accumulated.  They’ll go pretty much everywhere you need them to go, and they’ll do it for you pretty much as often as you want.

The basic gist here is that you really have better things to do with your time. Technology is out there that makes it completely possible for you to free up more time for that “doing” I’ve been going on about.  Living life and growing as a person doesn’t involve vacuuming or other remedial tasks.  Go do yourself a favor and pick up a Roomba for yourself.  Run it every day (it’s as simple as pushing the “clean” button) and then proceed to go about living your life.

Your house will be cleaner than ever, and as a result you’ll feel better in both body (from not having to breathe in all the dust, dirt and dander you never even knew was accumulating every day) and spirit (a clean house makes you more at ease, plus you have a bit more time for yourself).

My one warning: Don’t fall prey to watching your little robots do their thing.  Yes, it’s mesmerizing – but you’ll end up wasting more time than you saved.

The thing is though, your personal “brand” needn’t be like everyone else.  What’s really important is what you want to define yourself or your brand as.

I’ve been silent for a long time – not because I don’t have anything to say, but rather because I’ve been taking the time to embrace silence.  Spending time updating a blog on a regular basis doesn’t really accomplish a lot for me, especially given the fact that life has limited time.

So instead of trying to position myself as a master of web marketing and usability, or an independent author trying to find a readership, or a dabbling artist, or a gamer, or a reef enthusiast or a father or any of those things – I’ve been actually doing. In the past months we’ve gone through the holiday season at Musicnotes, and grew sales at a fantastic rate (up over 20% for 2009).  Musicnotes has also undertaken a huge project that’s still in its early stages, but one that takes time and focus to do in order to do it right.  I’ve been actively working on being a better father and husband, and I’ve completed the first draft of that nonfiction piece I mentioned earlier.

In short, I’ve been silent so that I can focus on mastery.  There’s always a lot to say, but to be honest, it doesn’t always need saying.  Instead the time spent talking could be time spent doing or thinking.

As such, my silent period is likely coming to a close.  I have some very useful things to share, and they’ll be coming out soon.

In the meantime, I recommend you all consider just what it is you are trying to accomplish by “building your personal brand” online.  Rather than writing articles of speculation or being a “thought leader,” actually be a leader.  Take the time to go silent and stop worrying about how you present yourself online.  Instead do something fantastic and grow yourself as a person – as you accomplish, people will take notice.

This is the year you’ll likely hear quite a bit from me – and it’s because I’ve taken the time to stop talking.

They weren’t.

In most articles you’ll read online, the act of downloading is the focus, like this one over at Gizmodo.  I understand that a lot of people online like to steal music, and that they’re upset that some people got in trouble for it – but the fact is, they’re wrong about what the people got in trouble for.  The people (Tennenbaum and Thomas-Rasset) got in trouble for downloading and distributing music.  They were found to do so willingly, and while knowing that to do so was illegal.

In fact, Tennenbaum continued to download and share music after he was contacted by the RIAA, after his father told him he should stop, and even after the lawsuit was filed.  Regardless of how long he did it though, he was found guilty of knowingly distributing other peoples’ property without a license and without compsensation.

I really don’t have too much more to say on the subject at this point, other than that they were not fined $675,000 (Tennenbaum) and $1.92 million (Thomas-Rassett) for just downloading music.  They were actively engaged in the distribution of copyright-protected materials to potentially millions of other people.

Neither of these was a case of “a fan who just wanted to listen to their favorite music” – they were cases where people took stuff that wasn’t theirs, gave it away to more people, and then ignored opportunities to settle out of court for minute amounts of money, all because they somehow felt it was their right to take things that didn’t belong to them and to make copies for everyone else.

Sure, there’s a lot of talk about making sure that you’re Google-search-safe and “OMG what if my prospective employer looks me up on Facebook” – but for the most part we’re fairly secure of anonymity. Or maybe we’re just understanding of the fact that the world is changing, and that we all might have some warts and that that’s okay.

Regardless of the reason, we definitely live in a time where it’s okay to say what we think or feel, and to share our experiences with friends or strangers. In a time when a person can have thousands of Twitter followers and not really know who most of them are, but still share their innermost thoughts, it can be assumed that for those who take part in this culture, they’re a fairly understanding and accepting group.

So, when we feel this safe and secure, it’s tempting to use the media at our disposal as an opportunity to lash out or to give praise – or in instances where we’re extremely bored, to comment on mediocrity. It’s an era of truth, at least truth of the moment – and it’s why I’m grateful for living when I do.

As the guy in charge of watching over both the design and marketing of one of the top 500 retail websites (at least according to Internet Retailer Magazine) I have a pretty vested interest in making sure that we succeed in our mission. I’ve been at Musicnotes.com for just about nine years now, and for most of that time I’ve been fairly involved in the direction we take (I started out as a marketing assistant, but that was a LONG time ago) – and the main deciding factor behind pretty much everything I ever pushed for (and continue to push for) is for what we call the “customer experience.”

Yeah, it sounds pretty generic when you hear it, but it’s really what we’re always looking at.  Our goal at Musicnotes is pretty simple – to help people (quickly and easily) find sheet music for songs they want to learn, buy it at a reasonable price (while we pay the songwriters a respectable royalty), print the sheet music and get over to the piano (or guitar or whatever instrument you might play) and play the song.

That’s it. You want to play a song? We want to help you.

So, over the years we’ve been focusing on trying to make that easier and easier.  We watch web analytics, we get feedback from customer service, we go through the process ourselves again and again and try to find the spots where thinks get a bit wonky – and then we try to make them better.

But lately it’s a lot different – there are tools at our disposal that let us be silent observers of our customers, as well as those who abandon us well before becoming customers.  There are systems like Google blog search or Technorati or Whostalkin or Twitter search or any of the other ways to keep a gauge on what people are saying about Musicnotes.com – and they are indisposable tools.  They let us see what people love about us, as well as what people hate about us – and this kind of uncensored but explicit feedback is extraordinarily valuable to us.

My personal goal at Musicnotes is to make it so that you never have to go anywhere else for sheet music.  It’s a pretty straightforward goal, and pretty narrowly focused – but that’s what it is. I want to give our visitors the best possible experience they can have, while still making sure the company and the songwriters and publishers are fairly compensated as well. To hear from people when they have a great experience at Musicnotes brings a smile to my face, especially when it’s related to something one of my teams has recently done – but to hear when we’re doing something wrong is much more helpful.  Of course we don’t want to do anything wrong, but sometimes we do – and we can always improve – and the kind of feedback that’s out there today really helps us do so.

But this is where problems arise.  Today there is such openness about experiences, but there’s also little awareness that those we’re talking about might be listening in. I have to.  I can’t help but listen. I need to hear about the joyous experiences, as well as the frustrating ones – and I need to engage pretty much everyone who’s taken the time to say something about us.  After all, to say something positive really deserves thanks – and to take the time to say something negative means that we have a problem we need to address.

I’m sure it freaks people out sometimes, to get a twitter response from our team trying to help resolve what might have been a negative experience.  As Twitter becomes more mainstream these kinds of unsolicited responses might feel even stalkerish, but honestly, it’s part of the tool.  To let someone cry out in frustration or pain, and to hear them, but do nothing about it frankly would break my heart.

I love our customers, including those who aren’t customers – and even though a response from a “corporation” might seem a bit impersonal, there really is a person behind it.  There are a lot of people, really – and they respond because they care and because they want you to be happy.  They want you to get off our site as soon as possible and play some music – because that’s what you came here for.

Remember that if you’re out there working for or running a company today.  Show some love, even if it appears corporate – as long as it’s honest. Because, as Nat King Cole sang in his song “Nature Boy,” “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love – and be loved in return.”

Here’s a snippet of the current work-in-progress.

For a lot of people, creation is their livelihood. For others, it’s where their livelihood should be. I may be modest at times, but I know I’m no Picasso. For people like him, there obviously was a motivation to create – but there was also a cost. In his lifetime, Picasso created an estimated 50,000 individual works. If nothing else, that’s a lot of paint, paper and time.

Still, the obvious question here is “What if Picasso had not been able to create as his profession?” Of course there is no way he’d have created 50,000 works – there simply isn’t enough time in one’s life to do something like that as a hobby. Or, if somehow he could have still produced as many works, it is highly unlikely he would have had the drive to do so, much less perfect his craft to the level which he did.

In the time before creators were easily able to share their works directly with the public (before the printing press, the phonograph or the Internet), much of the work was commissioned by church of government. Works of art we consider core elements of our culture would not have existed had it not been for these commissions. Some works took years to complete, such as Michelangelo’s painting of The Creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel which took four full years of Michelangelo’s time.

What is even more telling with this example, however, is that Michelangelo himself resented the commission for this work, believing it only served the Pope’s need for grandeur. So, in actuality, had it not been for the commission and promise of payment, The Creation of Adam would never have existed in the first place.

Of course, not all creators benefit financially from their work. In fact, many never expect to. This does not mean, however, they never desire to. With today’s technology it is much easier to acquire the tools to create, and much easier to distribute the creation once complete. The larger issue, and one that is oftentimes forgotten, is that these only make up the material costs of creation. As I’ve already mentioned, to create requires some sort of incentive to do so – and this is true for the most part because creating a work does not come without cost to the creator.

In Chris Anderson’s book, Free he says, “But some others have simply accepted that, for them, music is not a moneymaking business. It’s something they do for other reasons, from fun to creative expression. Which, of course, has always been true for most musicians anyway.”

Assumptions like this are at the core of what has been happening to reduce the value of music and other creations, which in turn has reduced the perception that being a creator of any sort is a viable career path. Having worked in the music industry for over a decade now, I can without a doubt say that the majority of musicians do so for some sort of future payment in mind. For many musicians, obviously this desire to be paid for their work does not come to fruition. There is only room for so many hits in the world. The fact remains, however, that the act of creation is not a selfless one. Whether it be for the hope of playing a gig, getting recognition from fans, getting signed to a label, being heard on the radio, or simply the hopes of using your music chops as a way to get “closer” to the opposite sex, very few musicians who go beyond school band or playing in the comfort of their own home do so for “fun” or “creative expression” – for them to succeed at their craft requires time, and time, as we all know, is not free.

Now you can get The Trouble With Being God, my debut philosophical / psychological thriller, for just $3.50 on the Kindle. (Or download the free sample to take a peek first).

Also, if you have an iPhone, don’t forget you can also download Kindle books to it with the Kindle iPhone app.

As you probably know, I’m working on my next book – albeit a bit slowly (we just had our second son, so I am obliged to take a break). This second book is definitely superior to my first – and is a rather marked departure from the contents of my first (there are no murders – so far). But the biggest difference with the new book is that I am probably not going to publish it myself.

Obviously I don’t have anything against indie publishing. After all, I’ve been waving the indie flag for quite a while now. But the thing is, indie publishing has a specific purpose and that purpose was to let books like The Trouble With Being God exist. It wasn’t a regular book – and I definitely took some big risks in the way I wrote it. I never expected it to be a huge success (and so far it hasn’t been) but the goal with that book was to write the story I wanted to tell – even though it wasn’t likely to be a hit with any sort of mainstream audience (in fact, I expected the ending to probably piss a lot of people off. It did – and for those of you who felt cheated, I’m sorry). Still, indie publishing is made for that kind of thing – trying something new to put it out there when traditional channels just aren’t ready to take that kind of financial risk.

The new book (which I’m currently calling ‘The Unfortunate Expiration of Mr. David S. Sparks’) is still something a bit out of the ordinary. It’s a futuristic kind of sci-fi tale – kind of a Philip K. Dick meets Aldous Huxley thing – but it’s something that I believe can hit a pretty major chord with a lot of people – and I’m planning on pitching it to publishers and agents.

With TTWBG I didn’t really bother with that. I did send out one agent query, but I published the book myself before I even received my rejection letter (it was the same agent that Dan Brown uses, by the way). The point was that I wanted to skip the back and forth and just get this first story out there. With TUEomDSS that’s not really the case.

This new work is something that I think has a chance for major success. It speaks to fairly widespread ideals, and is a mirror of our own place and time. It’s being told in a way that I think fits the storyline, and it’s something that I actually get excited when I read.

If you’ve been following me, you might think I’m some sort of speaker for the indie movement. I might be, but chances are I’m probably not. Here’s what I really think:

Self-publishing (indie publishing) is a decision you make. It’s not a last resort for those who can’t be published – and it’s also not a solution for those too scared to be rejected. The decision to self-publish is one you need to take absolutely seriously, and do so for the right reasons. There are a lot of reasons to do so – many of which are valid (less control over your artistic vision, to put out a work that might not have a mainstream outlet, to ensure a higher royalty per unit sold) but there are a lot of reasons not to.

The Unfortunate Expiration of Mr. David S. Sparks is a little over halfway done – and I already know I’m going to be sending this one out. It’s a damn good book (although it could definitely use some caressing), and it’s something that I believe a lot of people will like. It deserves, and hopefully will receive, the backing of the traditional press and to be in every major bookstore out there.

The Trouble With Being God was a good book and I’m proud of it … but it wasn’t right for traditional publishing.

This one is, and it’s where it’s going. (I hope.)

To be honest, at first I really wasn’t very interested in reading his book. The cover art definitely screamed indie, and the premise seemed a bit cliche (man’s life sucks, is presented with chance to change), and I am also usually pretty wary of author’s soliciting their works to me to read.  (I already have quite a few books on my to-read list.)  But Rogers and I emailed back and forth a few times (full disclosure here) and I told him that if he put it up on Kindle I’d maybe read it.  He did, he emailed me, and I went ahead and read it.

The thing is, this really isn’t my kind of book.  From some of the reviews out there he supposedly has some similarities to Bukowski, who I’ve never really cared enough about to read (and therefore can’t comment as to if he really is like Bukowski).  I will say this though: Celluloid Cowboy is really damn weird.

I hated the main character. I would absolutely never want to know someone like him (actually I have known people somewhat like him, and make it a point to avoid knowing them now). He has no purpose to life, he gets caught up in violence and murder and sex and disgustingness far too often – and yet somehow he’s supposed to have some resonance with the reader as someone who really does have a chance at redemption. He’s a bad person and pretty much everyone he comes into contact with in this book is a bad person… but I kept on reading.  Something here pulled me in, and Rogers made me really want to see how everything would play out in the end.

The thing with Celluloid Cowboy is that I could really never see this being published by any respectable publisher. It’s just too plain whacked out to fall into anything I could see a publisher feeling safe distributing – which is why I give a lot of credit to Rogers for putting it out on his own imprint, Black Coffee Press. This is exactly what independent publishing is for: to take chances and write something daring and original – avoiding that attempt to appeal to a specific target demographic that some major publisher is trying to sell to.

Celluloid Cowboy is destined to find an audience, so long as those who read it share the word – and that’s what I’m doing. It’s not going to change your world, but if you’re down for a quick gritty read, I absolutely recommend it.

By the way, if you own a Kindle you can get your copy for just $1.59 (at least that’s the price right now).  Go get it.