AP's New Policy: If They Speak To You, They Can Reprint Anything For Free?
How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
Newspapers Doing Well With Membership Clubs Instead Of Paywalls
The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
from the how-do-these-people-keep-their-jobs? dept
Wed, Jul 7th 2010 8:23am — Mike Masnick
This one is a bit surprising. Following the recent nutty statements from Prince, Kara Swisher has decided to take the contrarian position to explain why Prince might not be so crazy after all. Her reasoning is that she's spent several days down in LA talking to entertainment industry execs (her first mistake), and they seem to agree with Prince that the internet is a darned problem. Of course, to some extent, that's like asking the leading buggy whip makers their feelings on automobiles. Just because they haven't figured out a way to thrive doesn't mean that the automobile revolution is "over."
After spending several days here in Los Angeles this week, talking to execs, talent and others who toil in the entertainment industry--I can't say what I am hearing is that much different in terms of the continuing frustration with the lack of decent business models to replace the ones that have worked for so long and been so lucrative for the entertainment and media industry.
This is how disruptive business models work. The disrupted whine and complain about how the disruptors haven't shown them how to continue making the same monopoly rents they made in the past. But that, of course, ignores the nature of disruption. Disruption doesn't work by having someone come along and show the legacy players how to exactly replicate their old profits. It's the exact opposite of that. Disruption is when others figure out how to break down the barriers to do something more efficiently, and undercut the old business model. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong for the underlying benefit that people get.
More entertainment content -- movies, music, books -- are being made today than ever before. Anyone bitching and complaining about how the internet is "destroying" the industry isn't paying attention. What they should be focused on are all of the massive new opportunities created by this sudden glut of content, combined with massively more efficient (and often free) methods for content creation, distribution and promotion.
From music to movies to television, the biggest minds here still sound perplexed as to what will finally be the golden ticket to carry them through to the inevitable next era of digital distribution.
That single sentence basically describes the problem. These guys are sitting back and waiting for someone to hand them a golden ticket that replicates the old ways of doing things. That's not how it works. No one gave the buggy whip makers a golden ticket that let them keep their old lines of business going.
But the lack of a golden ticket most certainly does not mean there are no business models. Those who are embracing new business models are finding plenty of opportunity to do amazingly well (in fact, better than they did before). But, for the most part, it involves hard work and multiple streams of revenue. It's not the old "sit back and let the cash roll in" model that the industry is used to. But, some of us think that's a good thing.
"Why is the consumer always right?" said one exec to me this week in a typical statement. "You can't have a business if there is no business model."
It's a good thing the exec who said that did so anonymously, because otherwise his or her board of directors should be calling for him to be fired. The consumer is always right in a competitive marketplace because if you don't serve them, your competitors will. That there are still entertainment industry execs who don't get this is scary. And, saying there are "no business models" is so wrong that it again seems troubling that this exec still has a job in the industry. We spend a lot of time pointing to all sorts of working business models every day. They may not be the "golden ticket" that this exec wants where he gets to sit back and relax and see the cash flow in, but they can actually bring in a lot more money by leveraging a more efficient system, connecting better with fans, and giving them a real (scarce) reason to buy, rather than trying to bully them into paying through artificial scarcities.
From there, Swisher reverts back to Prince's statements:
If you remove the sillier parts of his quote that preceded it, such a statement is not unreasonable from an artist who wants to be paid for his creative efforts.
Thus, instead of mocking that sentiment, perhaps it is time for tech leaders to figure out a way to keep talent from being dragged into the future without so much kicking and screaming.
The role of the disruptor is not to make life easy for the disrupted. Swisher and these execs seem to be confusing the role of certain folks in the legacy industry with the overall entertainment industry itself. As noted, the entertainment industry is thriving. More movies, music and books are being created. More money is being spent. It's just that it's going to different players. There's no reason to "figure out a way to keep talent from being dragged into the future." The opportunities and wide open path are there. The problem isn't that tech leaders haven't made it easy for them. They have. It's that these guys are so myopically focused on the way they used to make money they don't realize that the new opportunities are already there and have been embraced widely by others.
Filed Under: business models, disruption, entertainment industry, prince
Techdirt Podcast Episode 262: An Open Protocol For Web Monetization
Techdirt Podcast Episode 259: A New Model For Independent Journalism, With Casey Newton
Our New Monetization Experiment: Coil & The Web Monetization Protocol
Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Senator Hawley's Latest Dumb Anti-230 Plan Would Wipe Out The President's Advantage On Facebook
Mike C. (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:16am
New business model
The whole time I'm reading this post, I kept thinking back to a recent Wil Wheaton blog post (new window). It contains a link to a video of an interview he did while up in Portland, OR this week.
The part that gets me is when he talked about Twitter and the w00tstock shows he's been part of with Adam Savage and 'Paul and Storm'. He points out that there has been no official marketing of the events, merely hype via Twitter, blog posts and word of mouth. And yet, even with the lack of "official" marketing, every show has been sold out.
Obviously, this won't work for everyone, but it is a great example of "you never know what will actually work".
Jon Lawrence (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:59am
Take this business model for free
Here, I've got one for our (content) business:
http://prezi.com/oe45kg2noinq/the-socially-enabled-theater/
I'm getting sick of hearing producers (disclosure: I'm a Producers Guild member), bitch and moan about our business in one breath, and in the other breath talk about how creative they are.
Well, if we're so damn creative, why aren't we talking about new business models and making them work? Everytime I bring up the topic, eyes glaze over.
Were there *any* buggy whip makers that made a successful transition to the automobile business?
Mike Harmon (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:00am
Re: Take this business model for free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker
there was this one at least, not a whip maker but a buggy maker did make it into auto manufacturing.
it also reminds me of when seiko started making quartz watches after the watch manufacturing industry turned it down.
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:08am
"From music to movies to television, the biggest minds here still sound perplexed as to what will finally be the golden ticket to carry them through to the inevitable next era of digital distribution."
There will be no golden ticket for digital distribution. Efficiencies, and competition have entered your industries. The cost of all media will go to zero for the consumer.
"Why is the consumer always right?"
This guy really does come from a monopoly business if he is even thinking this.
"Who will pay for the high upfront production costs of most major entertainment projects?"
LOL ... in a business with no competition people can charge as much as they like. That is the only reason why your upfront costs are so high. Competition will drive those costs down.
"Can costs come down enough to make up the difference?"
Yes, but so will salaries. Are you ready for it? probably not, you dont want to see your salary go from the multi million dollar range down to 100k a year or less.
interval (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 9:36am
@Hephaestus: "There will be no golden ticket for digital distribution."
Has there ever been a "golden ticket" for anything other than lottery winners? These guys (so-called music industry execs) appear to have either never learned or forgotten what its like to work for a living, so used to the days when they could print money by pressing records and cds, so they're taking to robbery (in the form of malevolent and onerous licensing mechanisms). I think the last golden ticket business was Hughes Tool & Die, wasn't it? I mean, how many businesses are there that actually believe the world owes them a living? Don't answer that. But the world really needs disease cures, so I can give some pharmaceutical companies a pass. Who the hell really needs record license holders to thrive? Bastards.
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:27pm
"These guys (so-called music industry execs) appear to have either never learned or forgotten what its like to work for a living, so used to the days when they could print money by pressing records and cds, so they're taking to robbery (in the form of malevolent and onerous licensing mechanisms)."
Isn't it cool !!! They are painting themselves into a corner. Creating a structured set of rules, agreements, and licensing mechanisms that will be their only source of income in a few years. Until someone decides to only play free or CC stuff on a major station as a cost cutting measure and it spreads.
It is my belief they are attempting to remove the public domain entirely to prevent the above scenario. They going after the CC, PKI, EFF, etc to paint them as the bad guys to this end.
"But the world really needs disease cures, so I can give some pharmaceutical companies a pass."
Actually this is being looked at from various angles due to a ??WHO?? report showing ??50?? million people worldwide have died due to lack of access to modern pharmaceuticals. Mainly due to cost, and lack of production licensing options.
"Who the hell really needs record license holders to thrive?"
the record license holders themselves ... ;)
chris (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:23am
that's the real issue. the legacy players see the problem like this:
i make millions dollars per year. tell me how am i supposed to keep making that much money giving stuff away for free?
the answer is easy. you can't. and to make matters worse, there are creators out there that would be overjoyed to make less than 100k per year making their entertainment products.
it reminds me of clay shirky's collapse of complex business models:
Dr. Amy Smith is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, where she runs the Development Lab, or D-Lab, a lab organized around simple and cheap engineering solutions for the developing world.
Among the rules of thumb she offers for building in that environment is this: "If you want something to be 10 times cheaper, take out 90% of the materials." Making media is like that now except, for "materials", substitute "labor."
compare that to this article about the drama surrounding the screen writers for the new "A Team" movie:
The pic comes out Friday following almost 10 years in development, millions of dollars in script costs, all for a movie version of a forgotten TV show that 20th Century Fox already is predicting to reporters may not gross more in its opening weekend than the recent 4th installment of the Die Hard franchise. Not since examples like Sister Act and Armegeddon and G.I. Joe have so many screenwriters labored so much to produce so little...
...What wasn't to the writers' liking was an executive so arrogant that on several occasions he actually "ran the script through his own typewriter," one scribe tells me. "I'm not kidding. He wrote pages." And another source confirms to me, "he was rewriting stuff personally." Still another tells me: "He micromanages scripts (down to insulting writers about grammar, which he's often wrong about), he rewrites scripts himself in violation of every guild rule, and along with fancying himself a screenwriter, he considers himself a story genius – without realizing that most of ideas are clichés he comes up with are all the latest clichés from the movie he saw last weekend."
so you have an industry with high labor costs, thanks to its elaborate system of guilds, that is now facing competition from content creators with potentially zero labor costs. oh, and the finished product of this exorbitant labor is often a product that stinks.
the issue isn't a business model problem, it's a product problem. the product they want to sell simply costs too much to sell for the going rate.
"it reminds me of clay shirky's collapse of complex business models:"
I hadn't read that before but it reminds me of when things under go a Catastrophic Failure especially the part ...
"Tainter's thesis is that when society's elite members add one layer of bureaucracy or demand one tribute too many, they end up extracting all the value from their environment it is possible to extract and then some."
In the case of the current media companies its not that they have reached the point where they would collapse under their own bureaucratic weight. You hit it on the head with ...
"so you have an industry with high labor costs, thanks to its elaborate system of guilds, that is now facing competition from content creators with potentially zero labor costs."
Competition from external sources, high internal costs due to never needing to compete, and a total failure to realize they cant resell the same content to people over and over any longer, a failure to meet customer demands.
We could go on for hours naming the inefficiencies of the record labels and movie studios.
"the issue isn't a business model problem, it's a product problem. the product they want to sell simply costs too much to sell for the going rate."
Agreed... especially when people are now producing web only series at no and low cost. "Pioneer one" , a 5 minute short for under 500 dollars.
These low and now cost shows are going to cause a reduction in what people charge for content making the survivability of the TV and Movies studios unlikely as they will not be able to compete.
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:52am
"Agreed... especially when people are now producing web only series at no and low cost. "Pioneer one" , a 5 minute short for under 500 dollars. " - actually, when you calculate the costs of peoples time to do this, you know the cost isnt $500, but tens of thousands of dollars.
when you calculate the costs of the equipment uses, the time spent, and so on, it wasnt made for $500.
further, and this is the key, these people are not going to give up their day jobs to do this for long, unless you want to accept the socialist concept that the state should pay time (welfare) so they can stay home and make movies.
so which would you like?
chris (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 8:43am
actually, when you calculate the costs of peoples time to do this, you know the cost isnt $500, but tens of thousands of dollars.
so they are lying about their costs? if so, why would they do that? why are they using the DISCO to promote and distribute it for free when they invested tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket?
these people are not going to give up their day jobs to do this for long, unless you want to accept the socialist concept that the state should pay time (welfare) so they can stay home and make movies.
how much would it really cost then? how much money would they need?
i don't think it's necessary to accept socialism and demand payment from the state. it could be something simple, like people do stuff because they want to. or that people make stuff because it's fun and want to share it.
how much do their day jobs pay? how much value is there in being able to make the things you want to make full time?
i can't speak for the VODO guys, but if i could make enough to pay the bills by having fun and making cool things, i would gladly sacrifice many luxuries to enable that pursuit.
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:31am
"The consumer is always right in a competitive marketplace because if you don't serve them, your competitors will." - in the music business, this concept is a "fail". the only real competition in the music business is people who dont pay for the same content, and distribute it anyway. if the companies that actually make the content go out of business, both sides lose, and in the end, the consumer was wrong.
short term thinking makes the consumer right. longer term thinking means that the consumer will lose most of their choices, and be mad because they lost them.
If the "free" music industry actually made enough quality new music (the type the public wants) there might be competition. right now, both sides get their supply from the same place, but only one is paying for it.
disruptive indeed, especially for the freeloaders.
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:42am
"the only real competition in the music business is people who dont pay for the same content, and distribute it anyway"
Nope. The real competition is from artists who leverage modern tools to produce and sell quality work. They're increasingly realizing that they can make as much, if not more, money from their work (and retain ownership and control of it -- no small thing) by bypassing the middleman of the established record labels.
Sure, they're unlikely to make millions, but in trade they are more likely to make a living than they were under the old system.
not only are the unlikely to make millions, they are also unlikely to give up their day jobs. they only represent a very, very small fraction of a percent of music consumption in the us alone. that tail is not going to wag the dog.
the real issue is that record labels are competing with torrent sites / file traders on an unequal basis. they each have the same product, but only one paid for it. so only one can suffer a loss. competing by giving the content away as well is not working, while mike doesnt want to address it, concert tours are turning to dust this summer as people refuse to pay inflated ticket prices. guess what, there is a limit to what people will pay for the transient joy of a concert.
"as people refuse to pay inflated ticket prices"
Well there's your problem. Make the ticket price relative to the value of the performance.
Success in the market is not raking in millions. It is raking in enough to do it again tomorrow with a little left over to spend on improvements.
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:33pm
"Well there's your problem. Make the ticket price relative to the value of the performance." - right. the problem is people are discovering that there is little value in paying enough to make up for the money being lost on the music sales side. mikes entire deal the last few years is that live ticket sales are making up for what is lost in recorded music sales. mostly it was done through much higher ticket prices ($500 for bon jovi anyone?), rather than through increases in touring or significant increases in tour dates.
that current large tours and cancelling out, shrinking, canceling dates, and so on is an indication that people are no longer willing to pay the price. personally, i blame free music, which has in turn taught people that even performing music has little actual value. when tickets for two, parking, a couple of beers and maybe dinner is higher than the average rent in most cities, there is a problem. the temporary trend in ticket sales stops working when people realize they are paying way over the value for something, mostly to support other parts of the business being ripped apart by freeloaders.
"Wahhhh, business is hard." - TAM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
god, you arent even a good troll (and you are trolling the wrong name). sorry, but it isnt that business is hard, it is that mikes entire concept of selling scarcity only works when people are flush and rich, not during normal times. scarcity, especially transient scarcities (such as concerts or meet and greets) are lost money. they are things that you do, the money is done, and you have no real retained value except memories. people can do this when they are floating in cash, but when things get even marginally tight, all of this stuff goes out the windows.
that the entire music industry is suppose to "give away the infinite, sell the scarce" and the public cant afford the scarce pretty much sticks a fork in the business model. its done and disproven by events.
it goes back to the reason why you sell recorded music for a reasonable price - because people could justify that, because they listen to the music all the time (and get value over and over again for their purchase).
it is amazing to see real life shoot down mikes master thesis.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is that mikes entire concept of selling scarcity only works when people are flush and rich, not during normal times. scarcity, especially transient scarcities (such as concerts or meet and greets) are lost money.
go lurk the new kids on the block message boards and see how much money women have "lost" over the last three years attending their events.
people can do this when they are floating in cash, but when things get even marginally tight, all of this stuff goes out the windows.
if times are tough, maybe you should reduce expenses so you can lower prices.
so we the world should just pretend that this superior way to promote and distribute content doesn't exist? good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.
that's a good idea, except for the fact that the going rate for recorded music is $0. other than that, though, it's a really good idea.
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 10:15am
Yet, when times are tough people buy CDs? Huh?
Ha! One poorly organized, poorly planned out event does bad, and it disproves the entire history of economics?
By that reasoning, the fact that CDs aren't selling as well as they used to proves your argument (people just want to buy music) is "done and disproven by events."
Except, of course, real life still agrees with me and makes you look confused about economics yet again.
right. the problem is people are discovering that there is little value in paying enough to make up for the money being lost on the music sales side. mikes entire deal the last few years is that live ticket sales are making up for what is lost in recorded music sales.
that's your disconnect. people still pay for stuff, they just don't pay what they used to. that's a shift in the market. the 90's are over and they're not coming back, no matter how desperately you want them to.
if you want to continue in the content business, you have to be able to deliver a product that turns a profit at the going rate. the going rate is significantly lower than it used to be. to quote marsellus wallace from pulp fiction:
Now that's a hard motherfuckin' fact of life, but it's a fact of life your ass is gonna have to get realistic about.
if the going rate is X your production costs are Y, your profit is equal to X - Y.
if Y is greater than X, you can shake your fist at X all you want, but you should really focus on bringing Y down to a sustainable level if you want to continue in the entertainment business. if you can't fix Y, maybe you should go into something else.
that current large tours and cancelling out, shrinking, canceling dates, and so on is an indication that people are no longer willing to pay the price.
indeed. the market changed and the established players have to change with it or go under.
personally, i blame free music, which has in turn taught people that even performing music has little actual value.
you can blame whomever you want. that doesn't change the fact that music is free and people that want to make music for a living have to find new and creative ways to make money.
the temporary trend in ticket sales stops working when people realize they are paying way over the value for something, mostly to support other parts of the business being ripped apart by freeloaders.
people don't pay to support businesses. they pay for value. end of story. there are two golden tickets: 1) increase value or 2) reduce costs.
anytime something is overvalued, there is a market collapse. this happened when people realized that tech start-ups were overvalued, it happened again when people realized that real estate was overvalued, and it will happen again when people realize that intellectual property is overvalued.
but have no fear, people still buy technology even though the tech sector imploded, people still buy houses even though the housing market collapsed, presumably people will still be paying for entertainment once the entertainment market corrects itself.
JC, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:51pm
they each have the same product
That is the constant flaw with your arguments. The record labels DO NOT have the same product. Even iTunes doesn't have the breadth of selection available on most file sharing networks.
The "studios" have never really released the product people are willing to buy - high quality, DRM free recordings of all music they have ever produced.
Your BS about concerts is just that, BS. Call me when you have some evidence about ticket prices going down.
i think AC has a point. file sharing networks do distribute the same products as the content industry. the fact that the number of offerings on file sharing networks eclipses what is available for authorized downloads supports that idea.
what AC fails to realize is that file sharing networks share what's popular, regardless of its origin. if the studios stop producing content, it won't affect file sharing in the least.
in fact, once major studio content is no longer available, file sharing will increase in value since that's the only way for consumers to get their hands on that legacy content.
whatever comes in to fill the void left by this theoretical studio collapse will also be distributed via file sharing. hopefully, for sustainability reasons, this new crop of producers knows how to leverage file sharing to their advantage since fighting file sharing is such a futile activity.
nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:54pm
if the companies that actually make the content go out of business, both sides lose, and in the end, the consumer was wrong.
Companies don't make art, people do. So you're saying that companies (music labels, movie studios, whatever) will go out of business, and (some of) the people those companies were paying to make art will stop doing it. My response is: fine. We don't need that "art" anyway. We'll get it from people who are going to make art no matter what.
I hope these companies just hurry up and go out of business or adapt, so we can all see who is right and who is wrong, but I think it's going to take a while.
Finally: you're crazy if you think movies, music, and art will stop being produced in the absence of the currently dominant businesses. Art is part of human nature, and cannot be stopped.
out_of_the_blue, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:34am
Varying "models" with same old *premises* = bad results.
"We spend a lot of time pointing to all sorts of working business models every day. They may not be the "golden ticket" that this exec wants where he gets to sit back and relax and see the cash flow in, ..."
Well, you're assuming that the "content" chain still *needs* executives of that sort at all. A good deal of middle-men, hangers-on, various parasites can *definitely* be cut out of the process now, and because those types *know* that they have been and are useless, they've a big incentive to use existing power and money to keep themselves in cushy positions. -- I think they'll be able to do so, in contrast to the more idealistic, because this isn't like the problem of buggy whip makers: the "product" is mere data, and there are already existing protective "laws" for them to leverage further.
"... but they can actually bring in a lot more money by leveraging a more efficient system,..."
Again, this is pre-loading with *your* values. Existing executives don't care beans about efficiency, or the quality of the content. They have a nice cushy place and are willing to bend the rest of society to any degree required in order to *keep* it. In fact, if current trends continue, they'll be set even better, practically in control of governments.
"... connecting better with fans, and giving them a real (scarce) [new] reason to buy, rather than trying to bully them into paying through [old] artificial scarcities."
I don't understand how *all* scarcity isn't artificial in this area. You've outlined putting some parts behind a pay barrier, so I think that it only makes sense with the editorially bracketed "[...]" words added.
>>> Overall, I think the "model" that *must* fall is getting ridiculous incomes from producing entertainment for *mass* distribution. Simply put, these people want to get filthy stinking rich in an entirely *material* way from a product that doesn't add anything to material wealth. Psychic rewards simply don't count with even the performers. Their efforts are intentionally "designed" for widest demographics ("rebellious" youth, mostly), rather than for excellence of art. Therefore, they don't *deserve* much in the way of rewards, and rest of society needs to work out a way to see that incomes fall in line with *value* to society. (That's EASY: either explicit limits on sales income per person per song, OR steeply progressive income tax rates, either of which can be implemented *without* harm to the ordinary person.)
(Some sort of error occurred 1st attempt.)
nasch (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:03pm
Re: Varying "models" with same old *premises* = bad results.
Therefore, they don't *deserve* much in the way of rewards, and rest of society needs to work out a way to see that incomes fall in line with *value* to society. (That's EASY: either explicit limits on sales income per person per song, OR steeply progressive income tax rates, either of which can be implemented *without* harm to the ordinary person.)
Why not just let the market decide how much they deserve like we do with most industries?
Our economy can only support so many artisans. If you can't make a living as a performer, then you are not one of them and it is time to get a job to supplement your hobby. You are not entitled to success.
To clarify: if you cannot make money in the current market, then one of two things has happened:
1) You have failed to utilize the market properly
2) Your art is not as good as you think it is
There is nothing wrong with the market and there is nothing wrong with consumers. Coming to terms with the fact that 1 or 2 is the reason why you are not successful is an important part of growing up.
Bob, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:06pm
Echo chamber
Unfortunately the comments section seems to be mostly an "echo chamber." I am against very long term copyright policies, however, copyright, as a method for encouraging content production, is something that has been around a long time. What is so wrong with copyright? I don't mean copyright as currently practiced in America, but copyright in general? Its purpose is rather clearly defined in the US Constitution, and I believe its purpose is worthy. Promotion of content creation is a worthy objective, and if the monopoly on that content can provide it, what is the problem?
It is difficult to extract the egregious behavior of current copyright holders, from the true benefit of copyright. But copyright is the method currently used to help create and sustain a market. I agree that it is not the only way, but it is a legally sanctioned way.
Lets think of music artists. If you were one, which method would you rather have to make money. Create music that people like, copyright it, and distribute it for $1 a song. The better your music, the more money you will make (theoretically), which should push people to make better music if they want to make more money. Alternately, you could decide that this was the best music you will ever make, and you will accept however much money comes from selling the music for $1 a song.
Or would you rather create music that people like, give it away free, and have to hustle selling something else, or giving concerts? I would propose that the first way is easier and the second way is harder. But what if you're agoraphobic? There is no way that you could give concerts. The amount of money that you will make from posters and donations from conscientious listeners will not provide you enough money to live on. You stop making music in order to get some other job. The art world and the culture of the society could lose out because musicians can not support themselves.
The benefit of copyright is very nicely summed up on the US Constitution. If we wish to support arts and progress, some method to allow people to support themselves by their artistic endeavors is needed. Your argument about disruption and that nobody is entitled to keep their business model, is well taken. Except that in this case, art is not just about business. There are socially important reasons for promoting creation of art. In the society in which you wish to live, having professional art may not be important. However it was seen as important by the "founding fathers" to include it as part of the law of the land.
How about just one more idea: If there was no copyright, and a musician created an album that was wildly popular. In order to recoup the cost and the personal labor of producing the album, the musician decides to give (and charge for) concerts. However, the musician is not a very good show man. I come along (who is a very talented show man) and I produce a fabulous show using all of the songs from the musician's album. Because I put on a great show, the original musician can no longer gain enough audience for his concerts. Will this musician be likely to try to produce music in the future? I would highly doubt it. But if you say that musicians can no longer expect to produce music once and sell it as many times as it will sell (which means dismantling copyright), you cannot say that the musician can make it up with a different business model. All of the other business models that I have heard here require, or heavily depend upon, copyright. If a musician can have monopoly to hold concerts, why can't they have a monopoly to sell CDs?
BigKeithO (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:30pm
Re: Echo chamber
I've never once heard this blog call for getting rid of copyright at all. I think you are arguing something that never happened. There are calls to restrict copyright to something a little more reasonable than it currently is and to embrace things like Creative Commons (which also depends on copyright) but not to get rid of it.
This blog supports finding smart new business models that can flourish and thrive by embracing file sharing. I think it can be summed up by saying file sharing isn't going away any time soon, so instead of wasting so much time and money fighting it learn to embrace what it allows and make money. No where does it say get rid of copyright and hope for the best, in fact I can think of a lot of posts that say this is a silly idea.
Unfortunately, most of what you have written is irrelevant to the real issues. This is not intended as an insult; I've talked with many people about the whole issue of copyright and it is a very difficult conversation to have meaningfully.
Your discussion hinges primarily on this statement: which method would you rather have to make money.
The point of this blog is simple - you don't have a choice about how you make money. The only person who has a choice about how money is made are the consumers.
You can choose to TRY making money in a variety of different ways (i.e. selling recordings, giving away music and selling t-shirts, touring, working in a factory). But ultimately you do not get paid because you want to, or because you work hard, or because you deserve it - you get paid because someone else makes the choice to pay you. Once you really fundamentally understand that fact, this blog starts to make a lot more sense.
Good responses to your post, but I'll add more.
I would propose that the first way is easier and the second way is harder.
I'm sure few would disagree, however, the purpose of copyright law is not to ensure that creators can make money easily, or even at all.
If we wish to support arts and progress, some method to allow people to support themselves by their artistic endeavors is needed.
Perhaps. It's also possible there would be plenty of progress of science and useful arts without copyright, in which case it's not serving its Constitutional purpose. But as mentioned before, I think most of us wouldn't mind reasonable copyright laws.
If there was no copyright, and a musician created an album that was wildly popular. In order to recoup the cost and the personal labor of producing the album, the musician decides to give (and charge for) concerts. However, the musician is not a very good show man. I come along (who is a very talented show man) and I produce a fabulous show using all of the songs from the musician's album. Because I put on a great show, the original musician can no longer gain enough audience for his concerts. Will this musician be likely to try to produce music in the future? I would highly doubt it. But if you say that musicians can no longer expect to produce music once and sell it as many times as it will sell (which means dismantling copyright), you cannot say that the musician can make it up with a different business model.
You have set up a false dichotomy: give concerts or sell recordings. There are always other choices. In your example, a partnership with the showman would be the most obvious possibility to me. He enjoys performing your music and is good at it. Offer to write music for him to perform in exchange for a percentage of his earnings. Since you're both getting paid already, you can release your recorded music for free to build popularity. Everybody wins: writer, performer, and fans.
I would also like to point this out as an example of how reasonable disagreement is handled around here. Bob posted some reasonable thoughts about copyright and explained why he holds his opinions. A few people then posted disagreement and indicated (cordially) exactly what they disagree with and why. There is no shouting down or any of the other crap that this forum is accused of.
The previous paragraph is not directed at you Bob. I hope you'll continue the conversation and feel welcome.
(sorry if this double posts)
(sorry if this is too long)
(sorry if these parenthetical comments are what makes this too long)
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:24pm
Unfortunately the comments section seems to be mostly an "echo chamber."
Hi Bob. The comments here really are not very much of an echo chamber. If you look, nearly every single set of comments on the site has people taking all sorts of different positions.
And, in fact, the people who agree with me on one post will often disagree with me on others.
However, if someone states something that is not backed up by evidence or fact, people may challenge them on it. It is full contact commenting, but hardly an echo chamber.
What is so wrong with copyright? I don't mean copyright as currently practiced in America, but copyright in general? Its purpose is rather clearly defined in the US Constitution, and I believe its purpose is worthy. Promotion of content creation is a worthy objective, and if the monopoly on that content can provide it, what is the problem?
It is the "if" statement you mentioned. "If the monopoly on that content can provide it," then we agree with you. I've stated over and over again that I'm in favor of overall economic and cultural progress. My problem is the lack of any evidence that copyright does this. In fact, all of the actual evidence shows the opposite. That's our concern.
But copyright is the method currently used to help create and sustain a market. I agree that it is not the only way, but it is a legally sanctioned way.
Indeed. But what if it's also the way that is used to actually stifle creativity and hold back progress? Wouldn't that be an issue.
First of all, copyright is not about making the best system for musicians. If that were the case, then it would set up a welfare system. After all, isn't that even better than what you describe? How about if you're a musician the gov't automatically pays you $500,000 per year. That seems even easier than copyright!
The fact is that, as you noted, copyright is supposed to promote the progress, not set up the easiest possible business model for musicians.
Or would you rather create music that people like, give it away free, and have to hustle selling something else, or giving concerts?
If that makes the artist more famous and allows them to make more money, make more music and spread their content around to more people then... um... yes? Isn't that better?
Again, nothing in copyright law is about making anyone's lives easier. But if we're using "easier" as the standard, then I'm afraid you're argument also falls apart. After all, the original purpose of copyright is to help the public get more content (not to help artists). So, let's look at it from the perspective of the public. In your two scenarios which one is "easier" for the public? I'd argue the latter.
But what if you're agoraphobic? There is no way that you could give concerts.
But there are tons of business models that don't rely on concerts. We've described how big artists (Reznor) and small artists (Motoboy, Matthew Ebel) made lots of money from models that didn't involve concerts (they did *also* use concerts, but that was not their core money making method).
The amount of money that you will make from posters and donations from conscientious listeners will not provide you enough money to live on.
Why do you say that? The evidence does not suggest that's true at all. I mean, no one is saying every musician can make a living without concerts, but plenty of them can and do.
The art world and the culture of the society could lose out because musicians can not support themselves.
Then you should rail against current copyright laws that for years concentrated all power in music making to a small group of gatekeeper labels, keeping everyone else out.
If you didn't fit into what they wanted, you weren't able to make a living. Now, however, any artist can take control over their own career.
The benefit of copyright is very nicely summed up on the US Constitution.
No, that's not the benefit. That's the purpose of copyright. It is an open question as to whether or not such monopolies really do promote the progress. The evidence, to date, suggests it does not.
Except that in this case, art is not just about business. There are socially important reasons for promoting creation of art.
Indeed. Which is why you should be happy to know of the recent Harvard study that showed that as copyright laws are more ignored, more art has been created. Celebrate!
However it was seen as important by the "founding fathers" to include it as part of the law of the land.
The history of how it was included in the Constitution is fascinating. It had nothing to do with protecting artists, of course. Initially it was entirely about promoting *learning* -- which is why it did not cover things like plays and entertainment. Also the founding fathers were very concerned about how the "bad" side of monopolies could outweigh the "good." They would likely want to see the evidence that is present today which suggests they were right, and reconsider whether or not it made sense.
How about just one more idea: If there was no copyright, and a musician created an album that was wildly popular. In order to recoup the cost and the personal labor of producing the album, the musician decides to give (and charge for) concerts. However, the musician is not a very good show man. I come along (who is a very talented show man) and I produce a fabulous show using all of the songs from the musician's album. Because I put on a great show, the original musician can no longer gain enough audience for his concerts. Will this musician be likely to try to produce music in the future? I would highly doubt it. But if you say that musicians can no longer expect to produce music once and sell it as many times as it will sell (which means dismantling copyright), you cannot say that the musician can make it up with a different business model.
You have a hypothetical. I could easily create a different hypothetical that works just as well. So, for example you put on better shows, and this musician writes better music. Well, basic efficiency suggests the two of you team up. You pay him to write you the songs, and then you perform them live: and you both benefit. No copyright necessary.
All of the other business models that I have heard here require, or heavily depend upon, copyright.
That's simply not true. Almost all of the business models we describe do not rely on copyright at all.
If a musician can have monopoly to hold concerts, why can't they have a monopoly to sell CDs?
Because concerts are a true scarcity -- there is only so much room in a venue. Music is not. It can be replicated for free infinitely. And that's where economics of supply and demand come into play.
Re: Re: Echo chamber
"Because concerts are a true scarcity" - and one people are less and less interested in paying for. mike, are you ever going to address the issues of all of the concert tour cancellations, cut backs, and such? it is important to look and see that perhaps the scarcity model you are pushing only works when people are flush with cash and can make expensive optional purchases of transient scacities.
otherwise, we risk spending more time in the aptly spotted "echo chamber".
What is so wrong with copyright? I don't mean copyright as currently practiced in America, but copyright in general?
that it gets abused to the point of becoming the current american practice. also, those who benefit from the current american practice i are doing their best to spread that practice to the rest of the world.
Its purpose is rather clearly defined in the US Constitution, and I believe its purpose is worthy. Promotion of content creation is a worthy objective, and if the monopoly on that content can provide it, what is the problem?
the problem is that the monopoly is not used to promote the progress, but as a cudgel to stifle free speech, fair use, innovation, culture, and in some cases, even privacy. that stuff is always way more important than revenue, and if creative types have to sacrifice some wealth to protect people's basic freedoms, then so be it.
Or would you rather create music that people like, give it away free, and have to hustle selling something else, or giving concerts? I would propose that the first way is easier and the second way is harder.
that's great, but the first way is guaranteed to fail with mathematical certainty, and the second way has a chance of succeeding. the first way is not grounded in reality and the second way is. profit in the entertainment industry is not, should not and will never be a guarantee.
If... a musician created an album that was wildly popular... However, the musician is not a very good show man. I come along... and I produce a fabulous show... the original musician can no longer gain enough audience... Will this musician be likely to try to produce music in the future?
a lot of copyright types often assume that once someone "takes" something, that it's gone forever. that if someone copies your stuff, you can't copy your own stuff back.
to render your current show obsolete, all the originator has to do is feature new original content. to me, that sounds like a real incentive to create more content.
how quickly can you put your tour together once you decide to do this guys music? how quickly could you put together a new show if the originator makes new stuff? the originator automatically has the "first mover" advantage because he gets first crack at original content. even if your shows are better, they will always be behind his in terms of originality.
plus, the originator can use your success with his old content to promote and endorse his new content.
so, if you are smart, you will pay the originator to write for you, so you get to bolster your showmanship with his first mover advantage.
also, without copyright, your awesome shows are fair game for the originator. assuming the real value is showmanship and not the quality of the content, the original artist can take what works from your show, and other popular shows, and incorporate it into his next series of concerts with new content that he/she created. you benefited from copying the originator, but he then benefits from copying you in return, and in the end, the best show makes the most money, again, assuming the value in mostly in showmanship which may not be the case.
or, the originator can connect with those who currently enjoy his concerts, and give them even more of what they want to see, leaving you to do your shows that appeal to your audience.
when there is no intellectual monopoly, there is nothing stopping brutal competition to deliver the absolute best product.
everyone has a natural monopoly on their performances, because only they can perform as themselves. this doesn't automatically invalidate originality. you pay to watch a comedian perform, not to hear his jokes, but if that comedian only tells jokes you've heard before, it hinders the performance.
Jason Lotito, 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:05am
Online Entertainment Industry is doing well
What I find odd is the assertion that it's hard to find business models for online entertainment, when the truth is, for more than a decade, online entertainment has been surviving and thriving.
The issue isn't finding a workable business model for online entertainment. Rather, it's accepting that your old model needs to change, and your new model needs to provide real value. You can't just copy/paste an old model into a new system and expect it to work.
This has been proven time and time again throughout history. Heck, the music industry grew because it was able to find a business model using new technology. So did the movie industry.
They were disruptive and innovative back in their day. But they've forgotten that.
No, the online entertainment world is doing just fine. It doesn't need you. You need it.
phil28, 8 Jul 2010 @ 7:06am
Kara Swisher not the brightest bulb
If it weren't for Mossberg Kara would still be reviewing vacuum cleaners for her old column in the WSJ. And don't forget, she's now in bed with Rupert Murdoch, and apparently is influenced by his equally wacky opinions.
calmo (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 10:12am
that golden ticket...
These guys are sitting back and waiting for someone to hand them a golden ticket that replicates the old ways of doing things. I don't think so. They know the old way of doing things is on a short rope. Throwing energy at ways to replicate the old way is just trying to stretch that rope by obstructing the disruption *until they can retire*, whereupon it becomes someone else's problem.
Richard (profile), 9 Jul 2010 @ 5:16am
Re: that golden ticket...
just trying to stretch that rope by obstructing the disruption *until they can retire*
You might be on to something there.
Otherwise, all they're doing is waiting for something new to come along and show them what to do whilst at the same time killing everything new that comes along. It's like waiting for the second coming by killing every newborn.
blinddrew, 8 Jul 2010 @ 11:54am
2 problems with Ms Swisher's article
Firstly she hasn't spoken to either the creator or the consumer, she's spoken to the middleman. Secondly she hasn't done her research on the alternatives.
Now i don't have a business model that works (i sure wish i did) but i know full well that the major label one is broken.
If they are to survive their top people need to start earning their money.
If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period
Another Day, Another Location Data Privacy Scandal We'll Probably Do Nothing About


Julius Zebra Quiz Book: (Julius Zebra)
Gary Northfield (Author) Gary Northfield (Illustrator)
Also available on eBook for £4.79. Click here to purchase from Rakuten Kobo
The Champion of Rome returns, with a compendium of quiz questions! The Zebra-themed quiz book we have all been waiting for! Full of Roman, Greek and Egyptian ancient history, join Julius and the gang for a trivia tour of the ancient world, and impress parents and friends alike with over 100 fascinating facts. And of course, in true Julius Zebra style, there's heaps of humour to lighten the load of all that learning. How did the Romans transport the water for the baths? a) Viaduct b) Aquaduct or c) Via a duck
Gary Northfield is an award-winning and bestselling author and illustrator of children's books and comics. His popular Julius Zebra series has now been translated into several languages worldwide and includes five books: Julius Zebra: Rumble with the Romans!; Julius Zebra: Bundle with the Britons!; Julius Zebra; Entangled with the Egyptians!; Julius Zebra: Grapple with the Greeks! and the Julius Zebra Joke Book Jamboree! Julius Zebra: Rumble with the Romans! won the 2017 Spellbinding Book Award voted for by children. Gary's other books include The Terrible Tales of the Teenytinysaurs! and Gary's Garden. Gary's work is also published in The Beano, The Dandy and National Geographic Kids among many other magazines. He lives with his dog Stan, partner Nicky and young twins. Find Gary online at garynorthfield.com, on Twitter as @garynorthfield and Instagram as @stupidmonster.
Contributor: Gary Northfield
Imprint: Walker Books Ltd
Packaged Dimensions: 129x198x6mm
Packaged Weight: 93
Publisher: Walker Books Ltd
Series: Julius Zebra
Biography: Gary Northfield is an award-winning and bestselling author and illustrator of children's books and comics. His popular Julius Zebra series has now been translated into several languages worldwide and includes five books: Julius Zebra: Rumble with the Romans!; Julius Zebra: Bundle with the Britons!; Julius Zebra; Entangled with the Egyptians!; Julius Zebra: Grapple with the Greeks! and the Julius Zebra Joke Book Jamboree! Julius Zebra: Rumble with the Romans! won the 2017 Spellbinding Book Award voted for by children. Gary's other books include The Terrible Tales of the Teenytinysaurs! and Gary's Garden. Gary's work is also published in The Beano, The Dandy and National Geographic Kids among many other magazines. He lives with his dog Stan, partner Nicky and young twins. Find Gary online at garynorthfield.com, on Twitter as @garynorthfield and Instagram as @stupidmonster.


TVLine Items: General Hospital Exit, Titans Casts Rose Wilson and More
By Vlada Gelman / March 22 2019, 11:22 AM PDT
General Hospital is down a doc: Matt Cohen is exiting the ABC daytime soap after playing neurosurgeon Dr. Griffin Munro for three years, TVInsider.com reports.
"It was a great time, and I had great fun playing the character, but I'm a guy who gets uncomfortable when he gets comfortable," Cohen tells the site. "I need to give Griffin a little rest right now." After talking to executive producer Frank Valentini, Cohen decided to move on and pursue directing projects. But his exit from GH is "very open-ended," the actor adds. "There's always the chance I'll come back."
Cohen's last episode airs today.
Ready for more of today's newsy nuggets? Well…
* Chelsea T. Zhang (Andi Mack) has joined Season 2 of DC Universe's Titans in the series-regular role of Rose Wilson, aka the Ravager, our sister site Deadline reports.
* Jack Davenport (Smash) will play the husband of Lucy Liu's '80s socialite in CBS All Access' forthcoming series Why Women Kill, per Deadline.
* Ryan Murphy's first Netflix original series The Politician, starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Tony winner Ben Platt, will premiere on Friday, Sept. 27.
A post shared by Ryan Murphy (@mrrpmurphy)
* Kristin Cavallari will serve as the host of Fox's Paradise Hotel revival, which will premiere Thursday, May 9 at 8/7c.
* Starz has made the full first season of Now Apocalypse available to stream on all of its non-linear platforms, and has also put the series premiere up for free on Starz.com, YouTube, Reddit and Pride Media platforms. (Season 1 will continue to air Sundays at 9/8c.)
Which of today's TVLine Items pique your interest?
TAGS: Chelsea T. Zhang, General Hospital, Jack Davenport, Kristin Cavallari, Matt Cohen, Now Apocalypse, Paradise Hotel, The Politician, Titans, Why Women Kill
GET MORE: Casting News, Scheduling News, TVLine Items


Posts from 20th November 2000
POP-EYE 19/11/00
Pete Baran • New York London Paris Munich • Pop • Post a comment • 198 views
Let us start with a poser for you. This weeks top six records are all newcomers to our chart, all except one. What – dear readers and lucky not to be listeners – can that record be? Surely one of the combatants in last weeks battle of the boy bands? Perhaps those Tweenies, inexorably making their way to "Number 1"? I'm not telling you till the end, though if you can't guess frankly you have not been reading Pop-Eye, looked at the charts but you might possibly have been listening to Radio One – since the snobs there won't play the nations number three.
But to the top of this weeks no mark charts. Its like a chart-wise personification of the Paula Abdul/MC Skat Kat classic – as at the top opposites certainly attract. Daft Punk's relatively weak for them "One More Time" is still an awful lot better than anything else employing a vocoder in the charts. Of course, post Cher's "Believe" this is pretty much every tune in the forty. One More Time has been over the radio like a rash, and its a nagging song which certainly needs an itch or two. Unfortunately it just develops you that involuntary shoulder twitch, which is the sign of good insidious dance. Would have made a good number one, in the way that bands best tunes never make the top.
The same could be said about this weeks actual chart topper. Except "Can't Find The Moonlight", is no better or worse than LeAnn Rimes' other Jerry Bruckheimer film collaborations ("How Do I Live" being about as bad as John Malkovitch in Con Air). CFTM is ripped still-born from the female Cocktail "Coyote Ugly" – a concept the world had been clamouring for – and is altogether as bad as the film. LeAnn is a ridiculous name, and I shall not comment any further except for in a year of forgettable number ones, this may well top them. Because I heard it last night and I'm damned if I can remember how it goes. Some pop columnist I am, but this says more about the tune than me taking the piss out of her surname. (She does, to her credit, Rime).
What can number three be?
Artful Dodger's two old geezers are back with possibly Linford Christie in tow. Sorry, that's Lifford. Pretty standard garage fare from the Dodgsters, direct, fun and four million times more interesting than MJ Cole. Five is Finnish, so the less said about that the better (I don't do Scando-pop/dance). And finally we get to six, the best of the top five and a stirling return to form from the Wu-Tang Clan.
Of course, this isn't really a return to form chart-wise, as the Wu's have never had a UK top twenty hit before. Not on their own. The beauty of their cluster-bomb stealth like attack on the music biz is that they can get ten hits at any one time. The down side is that casual observers may never have heard of them. But who cares about casual observers? A grimy piece of production, lots of dark rhymes and the WTC return to stake their territory from Johnny come latelies. Like the Bomfunk MC's.
So A1 plummet from 1-8 – serves them right. Tweenies outlast them at 7, because its a better song. So its boyband central at the bottom of this area, which at least keeps Toploader out of the top ten with the third release of "Dancing In The Moonlight". This record is rubbish, and each release shows how rubbish it is. The seventies original was a hideous stab of rockism, and Toploader – named after a washing machine fer'chrissake – make it so much worse. Same cannot be said for Badly Drawn Boy's pointless re-release of "Once Around The Block" – which has already been once around the block and did as poorly in this chart as it did originally (27). Its a good record, but familarity is starting to breed contempt.
So what else of note? Richard Blackwood shy of the twenty (phew). Savage Garden bore for Australia. And the Devil rocks in with a number of the beast statement of intent. All in all PJ Harvey must count it as – ahem – "Good Fortune" to miss out on being in this unpleasant top forty altogether. There is nothing obvious trendwise here and most of those top ten entries will drop out of the charts in two weeks. Except of course our number three. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back the sticking like glue. The Baha Men's "Who Let The Dogs Out". An uncharitable man may also ask, how did she get to number one?
Daft Punk – "One More Time" (2)
The Baha Men – "Who Let The Dogs Out" (3)
The Wu-Tang Clan – "Gravel Pit"(6)
The Tweenies – "Number 1" (7)
Badly Drawn Boy – "Once Around The Block and long in the tooth"(27)
THE VERVE – "The Drugs Don't Work"
23 Mar 2014 #773, 13th September 1997 "Whenever we played that live there would be rows of grown men crying. It was almost like these guys couldn't cry when they needed to cry, but that song operated like a pressure valve for them and it was okay for them to cry at a big rock concert." – Richard […]
Pop World Cup 2018: Group A Match 1
17 Jun 2018 It's here! The opening game of the Pop World Cup finds the four teams of Group A raising the curtain on the tournament. Pop football veterans Russia and Uruguay meet two Arab states – Egypt and Saudi Arabia – with less of a record at this level. Who will prevail? You decide. Spotify playlist and […]
In search of Squirrel – Part two
3 Oct 2004 In search of Squirrel – Part two (warning, contains graphic images) Some of you may remember this article I wrote some time ago about my "failure" as a vegetarian and my quest for the different. Well, I've done it. Squirrel had become a bit of an obsession, I'd chased up all sorts of alleys (Julian […]
WHITE TOWN – "Your Woman"
4 Feb 2014 #757, 25th January 1997 In 1997, talking about music on the Internet means USENET, a Gormenghast of diverging and reconnecting fora whose goblin tribes gleefully rampage through each other's chosen lairs: a thread will start on alt.music.prodigy, then careen into alt.music.spice-girls via alt.music.misc, while Discordians and trolls plot to spread it still further. Still, there […]
How clean is your band?
11 Oct 2006 The discerning televisual fan will be aware of the vacuum currently residing in the schedules between the 7.30pm end of Hollyoaks First Look and the 9pm commencement of Ghost Whisperer. There are only so many times one can flick between Puff Daddy jiggling next to the Lead Pussycat on TMF and the startlingly abhorrent animated […]
The Freaky Trigger Top 100 Tracks Of All Time: No. 57 ELVIS COSTELLO & THE ATTRACTIONS – "Oliver's Army"
20 Jul 2007 I semi-remember just two lines from the NME's (Charlie Shaar Murray's?) review of "Armed Forces" (secret unused title "Emotional Fascism"). One was that one of the other songs resembled ELP "jamming in the bottom of an oil drum"! The other — more germane to this post, as well as being true — is that "with […]
The FreakyTrigger Top 25 Brands: 22: TARMAC
24 Nov 2006 Tarmac? What kind of a brand is that, its just the pavement, right? Wrong my friends. Tarmac is a brand and an awe-inspiring dominant one at that. I love brands whose names are synonymous with their main product, it shows an awesome degree of brand dominance when the brand name becomes subsumed into language. But […]
Clive Dunn - "Grandad"
George Harrison - "My Sweet Lord"
Mungo Jerry - "Baby Jump"
T Rex - "Hot Love"
Dave And Ansel Collins - "Double Barrel"
Tony Orlando And Dawn - "Knock Three Times"
Middle Of The Road - "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep"
T Rex - "Get It On"
Diana Ross - "I'm Still Waiting"
The Tams - "Hey Girl, Don't Bother Me"
Rod Stewart - "Maggie May"
Slade - "Coz I Luv You"
Benny Hill - "Ernie, The Fastest Milkman In The West"
None of them!


Fundraiser for slain teen shatters expectations
A crowdfunding campaign for the family of a Mississauga teen who was shot and killed in a hail of bullets Saturday has soared past expectations, raising over $18,500 in just a day.
Selma Alincy, a friend of 17-year-old Jonathan Davis's family, launched an online fundraiser with a goal of collecting $15,000 on Monday. By Tuesday afternoon, it had raised over $3,500 more than its stated target.
"A huge thank you to everyone for their donations and sharing this page," Alincy wrote on her GoFundMe page. "The goal has not only been met but it has been exceeded in less than 24 hours.
"I am extremely grateful and humble to see a community come to together to help Jonathan's family. I never expected such [an] immediate and overwhelming response," she added.
"The family is truly thankful and appreciative for everyone's support. This contribution will be a big help to the family to make funeral preparations for him in this difficult time."
Davis, who was just weeks into his final year of high school, was killed in what police are calling a "brazen" act of violence outside an apartment complex on Darcel Avenue near Morning Star and Goreway Drive, west of Toronto.
Investigators have said the teen was not involved in the violence in any way.
Alincy, a friend of Davis's mother for more than 20 years, told CBC News in a previous interview that the teen was a "respectable young man," who was quiet, loved video games, was great with electronics and always there to help his father who, she said, has been losing his eyesight.
On GoFundMe, she thanked the community for its contributions.
"Everyone's generosity is a huge blessing," she said.
Redes Sociais - Comentários
#toronto FUNDRAISER FUNERAL JONATHAN DAVIS MISSISSAUGA SHOOTING
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Tumblr Pinterest Reddit VKontakte Odnoklassniki Pocket Partilha via e-mail Imprimir
Discount for GO Transit, TTC riders ends March 31 after province pulls funding
Ford government appoints new human rights commissioners
Não perca também
Developer unveils plans to create whole new city centre in Mississauga
Victims of Bruce McArthur honoured 2 years after his arrest


Heavy Ion Accelerator Symposium on Fundamental and Applied Science 2012
P. Jin-Hong, PhD-Dissertation, Stanford University (2009). [Google Scholar]
P. Jin-Hong et al., IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), Technical Digest, (San Francisco) p 389. [Google Scholar]
C. O. Chui et al., IEDM Tech. Dig. 17, 437 (2002). [Google Scholar]
S. Gaudet et al., J. Vac. Sci. Tech. A 24, 474 (2006). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
H. Timmers et al., Hyperfine Interactions 197, 159 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
A. A. Abiona et al., 35th Annual Condens. Matter & Mat. Meeting, Wagga-Wagga, Australia (2011). [Google Scholar]
E. Bezakova, Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra (1998). [Google Scholar]
M.D. Rodriguez et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 614 119 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
D.J. Hinde et al., these proceedings. [Google Scholar]
G. Schatz and A. Weidinger, Nuclear Condensed Matter Physics (New York: Wiley) (1996). [Google Scholar]
H. Frauenfelder and R. M. Steffen, α-, β-, γ-ray spectroscopy ed Siegbahn K (Amsterdam: North-Holland) (1965). [Google Scholar]
Applications of a 6.5T Superconducting Solenoidal Separator
Determination of the angular distribution of evaporation residues following transmission through the superconducting solenoidal separator SOLITAIRE
Determination of Precision Fusion Cross Sections Using a High Efficiency Superconducting Solenoidal Separator
The source of "background" fission events in experiments on superheavy elements
Eur. Phys. J. A (2012) 48: 32
New Elements: Manipulating Nuclei at the Nucleon Level
Europhysics News Vol. 26, No. 5, 1995, pp. 101–102


'America's Rabbi' to Headline SUU's Commencement
Published: April 12, 2013 | Category: Special Events
Southern Utah University is proud to announce "Rabbi Shmuley" as its keynote Commencement speaker. Shmuley Boteach, an international leading relationship and values expert, is also one of the nation's most prominent religious leaders and entertainment icons. He will speak to the graduates and guests of the Class of 2013 on Friday, May 3, at noon in the Centrum Arena.
Hailed as one of the world's most gifted public speakers, Boteach's insightful, direct and witty social commentary and ongoing efforts to encourage and uplift speak far beyond a Rabbi's usual audience. Labeled "a cultural phenomenon" by Newsweek magazine and "the most famous rabbi in America" by The Washington Post, Boteach has been named one of the ten most influential rabbis in America, and his 29 books have all been international best-sellers, translated into 20 languages.
Of selecting Boteach to speak in this year's Commencement, SUU President Michael Benson said, "Rabbi Shmuley has distinguished himself through his books, television appearances, weekly articles, and speeches as one of America's leading social and political commentators. His recent run for Congress — and his bid to become America's first rabbi in the U.S. House of Representatives — is evidence of his commitment to addressing important issues facing our society today."
While his unabashed nature has earned both praise and criticism, Boteach's work is prolific and speaks to a life devoted to faith, family and traditional values.
He is a highly sought-after television and radio guest and has appeared on shows ranging from The Today Show to The O'Reilley Factor to Dr. Phil, and everything in between, including regular appearances on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. He was also the subject of a full-length BBC documentary, "Moses of Oxford," and has been profiled in many of the world's leading publications, including Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, The London Times, The L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post.
Praised by Dennis Prager as "possessing one of the most fertile minds of our generation," Rabbi Shmuley most recently published The Fed-Up Man of Faith: Challenging God in the Face of Suffering and Tragedy, tackling timeless questions of the nature of defeat and adversity. Prager wrote, "Shmuley Boteach has written many important books. This one may be his most courageous — and most influential, in that it may change the way more people think than any of his other already influential books, or, for that matter, than any book by almost anyone else writing today."
In just over two decades, Boteach has written 28 other best-selling books, a sampling of which speaks to long-time study and thought on a great many modern social and religious constructs: Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life; The Broken American Male: And How to Fix Him; Hating Women: America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex; The Kosher Sutra: Eight Sacred Secrets for Reigniting Desire and Restoring Passion for Life; Face Your Fear: Living with Courage in an Age of Caution; Judaism for Everyone; and his review of Oxford history and life, Moses of Oxford, Vols. I & II.
His book Why Can't I Fall in Love was a finalist for the 2002 Books for a Better Life Award, and writings focused on the American family, Parenting With Fire and Ten Conversations You Need to Have With Your Children, were both launched on Oprah's television show.
Boteach is one of the principal contributors to the home page of The Huffington Post, is a weekly columnist in The Jerusalem Post and The New Jersey Jewish Standard, and makes regular contributions to The Wall St Journal, the Washington Post, and many other leading publications.
He was host of The Rabbi Shmuley Show, a daily national radio program on Oprah & Friends, XM Satellite Radio, and was also host of the award-winning national reality TV show, TLC's Shalom in the Home, for which he received the National Fatherhood Initiative's most prestigious award, recognizing his efforts to promote the importance of a caring father in the contemporary family.
Rabbi Shmuley first came to world attention through his founding of the Oxford University L'Chaim Society, an organization of Oxford students that within three years of its founding in 1988 had become the second largest student organization in Oxford's history.


2 Kings 25:1–30
The Final Invasion of Nebuchadnezzar
25 It happened that in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth of the month, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem. He encamped against it and built siege works against it all around. 2 So the city came under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. 3 In the ninth month, the famine became severe in the city, and there was no food for the people of the land. 4 Then the city was breached, and all of the men of war entered by night by way of the gate between the wall which was by the garden of the king, and the Chaldeans were against the city all around, so hea left by the way of the Arabah. 5 But the army of the Chaldeans pursued the king, and they overtook him in the Arabah of Jericho, and all of his army scattered from him. 6 So they captured the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and ⌊they passed sentence on him⌋.b 7 They slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes; then they blinded the eyes of Zedekiah and bound him in bronze fetters and brought him to Babylon.
Jerusalem Is Sacked and the Temple Burned
8 In the fifth month, on the seventh of the month, that is, the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan, a commander of the imperial guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned the temple of Yahweh, the palace of the king, and all of the houses of Jerusalem; every large house he burned with fire. 10 And all the army of the Chaldeans who were with the commander of the imperial guard tore down the walls of Jerusalem all around. 11 The remainder of the people left in the city, the deserters who had deserted to the king of Babylon, and the remainder of the multitude, Nebuzaradan the commander of the imperial guard deported.
12 But the poor of the land the commander of the imperial guard left for the vineyards and for tilling.
Plunder Taken by the Chaldeans
13 The bronze pillars that were in the templec of Yahweh, and the water carts, and the bronze sea that was in the templed of Yahweh, the Chaldeans broke into pieces and carried their bronze to Babylon. 14 The pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the dishes, and the vessels of bronze with which they served there, they took. 15 The firepans and the basins, whatever was gold, the commander of the imperial guard took for the gold and whatever was silver, for the silver. 16 The two pillars, the one sea, and the water cart that Solomon had made for the templee of Yahweh, there was no weighing to the bronze of all of these vessels. 17 The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits; a bronze capital was on it, with the height of the capital being three cubits. The latticework and pomegranates on the capital all around were bronze, and likewise on the latticework for the second pillar.
18 Then the commander of the imperial guard took Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the second priest, and three of the threshold keepers. 19 From the city he took one court official who was chief officer over the men of war, five men ⌊from the king's council⌋f who were found in the city, the secretary of the commander of the army who mustered the people of the land, and sixty men from the people of the land being found in the city. 20 Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. 21 Then the king of Babylon struck them down and killed them at Riblah in the land of Hamath; thus Judah was removed from its land.
Gedaliah Appointed Governor
22 Now as far as the people left in Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon left behind, he appointed Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan over them. 23 When all of the commanders of the troops heard, they and the men, that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah, they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, Johanan the son of Kareah, Seriah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, Jaazaniah the son of the Maacathite, they and their men. 24 Gedaliah swore to them and to their men, and he said to them, "You must not be afraid because of the Chaldeans. Settle in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and may it go well with you." 25 But it happened in the seventh month that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah the son of Elishama from the offspring of the kingship came, and ten men with him, and they struck down Gedaliah so that he died with the Judeans and with the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah. 26 Then all the people, from youngest to oldest, and the commanders of the troops, went to Egypt, for they were afraid of the presence of the Chaldeans.
Elderly Jehoiachin Cared for in Babylon
27 It happened in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month on the twenty-seventh of the month, lifted Evil-Merodach king of Babylon in the year that he became king, the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah from the house of imprisonment. 28 He spoke ⌊kindly⌋g to him, and he gave him a better seat than the seat of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So he changed the clothes of his imprisonment, and he ate food continually in his presence all the days of his life. 30 His allowance was continually given to him from the king, ⌊a portion every day⌋h all the days of his life.
That is, Zedekiah
Literally "they spoke justice with him"
Or "house"
Literally "from those who saw the face of the king"
Literally "good things"
Literally "a thing of day on his day"


Hybrid work model: 4 tips for teams in 2022
The hybrid work model is likely to become standard in 2022 and beyond. If you're still shaping a hybrid work strategy, consider these tips to ease the process
Ilkka Mäkitalo
December 21, 2021 | %t min read
In 2022, the hybrid work model will be called, simply, "work." Until it's the norm, teams will have growing pains making the adjustment. While there is no cookie-cutter approach for all people, roles, or projects, consider these tips to smooth the transition.
1. Co-create the hybrid work model with your organization
There's no one-size-fits-all hybrid work model for each organization – ultimately, it needs to fit your organization's culture and people. Co-creating that model with everyone in your company is the key to success.
Because of how it directly affects the people in your organization, avoid making top-down decisions. Ask employees what their preferences are and try to accommodate those. Otherwise, you'll end up with frustration and resentment, which can quickly fracture culture and morale.
Agree within the organization on what purpose the office has in the hybrid environment.
Consider together which types of structures work best for the people in your team. Look after your team, and they'll look after your customers and organization. Popular hybrid work structures include a remote-first approach with occasional office days or office-first with employees working remotely on set days. Some companies meet in person at the office only once a month.
Agree within the organization on what purpose the office has in the hybrid environment. Is it to enhance collaboration or to foster building relationships? Gather thoughts and ideas from everyone, and don't just resume office attendance because that's how it was previously done. Your annual budget might also be thankful if you can find alternatives to your large, empty office.
[ Want more advice on hybrid work? Read also: What is a hybrid work model? and Hybrid work model: 5 advantages. ]
2. Trust your employees
Let employees work the way they feel is best for them, and the result will be happier and better-performing team members.
Use milestones and deadlines to gauge your team's progress instead of tracking time. One challenge of remote work is "appearing" to be productive and present to the management team. However, measurement should not be seen as a punitive exercise to catch people out – it should guide employees toward completing their goals.
Most workers don't work the entire eight hours they're in the office either, as they're often engaging in spontaneous meetings and meaningful moments of connection with colleagues. Managers should disregard time as a measure of productivity and trust their employees to do their job to the best of their ability. If goals are being met but the employees feel distant because they don't need to collaborate as much or that they need to "appear busy," then the goals are too easy and need to be readjusted.
Be careful to keep engagement and communication high – otherwise, you can end up with the "watermelon effect" – good "green" performance, but below the surface, there's a big chunk of red, which represents a poor employee experience. In such cases, employees might discuss problems with each other at the (virtual) water cooler, but not necessarily with management.
3. Rethink meetings
To find new ways of working, adopt a facilitator's mindset.
We need to learn new ways of working so that not all working hours are spent in back-to-back meetings and the "real work" is done on weekends and evenings. This means we need to incorporate more asynchronous work.
To find new ways of working, adopt a facilitator's mindset – focus on understanding how human relationships work and designing the work to best suit these habits and needs.
Also, keep the social aspect in mind for all meetings by asking check-in and check-out questions. Having off-topic conversations and connecting as individuals rather than always having an official agenda is essential.
4. Create opportunities for connection and interaction
Think beyond Zoom coffee chats and happy hours, and consider approaches like walk & talks, virtual coworking, music quizzes, open office hours, and buddy systems.
A "work buddy" acts as a mentor to new employees and has regular one-to-one meetings during their first weeks or months at the company to ensure that their integration goes smoothly. This creates opportunities for information-sharing and learning, even during remote work, which has typically been a struggle for younger employees who are looking to older employees for information.
Have walking meetings or catch-ups with your team and encourage your team members to book these with each other. Walk & talks help you achieve two important goals: exercise and social connection. Plus, they help combat the Zoom fatigue we've all experienced.
To help foster more spontaneous conversations in a way that doesn't disturb people's work, leaders and employees can add open (virtual) office hours to their calendars or status bars. During designated time slots, anyone can then jump on a call with that person to bounce ideas off each other, talk through a challenge they're facing, or just have a friendly check-in.
Virtual coworking is a way for individuals to work synchronously, but on their own projects. People can join a group video call to each work on their own projects. By keeping cameras and microphones on, people get the sense that they're sharing the space with others, and it can help some people to boost accountability and productivity.
More on remote and hybrid work
Remote work exhaustion: 13 tips to reduce fatigue
What is a hybrid work model?
Hybrid work model: 5 advantages
Workbook: Transformation takes practice
Ebook: The automated enterprise
Having the right tools goes a long way to ensuring that collaboration is smooth and employees are happy. Most dissatisfaction in our day-to-day lives comes from using a tool when a) we don't understand the purpose behind its use, and b) the tool doesn't contribute positively to helping our workflows and productivity.
Also, it is important that the tools fit seamlessly within the context of synchronous and asynchronous work. Tools and admin for the sake of it are inherently detrimental, so putting the right tools in the hands of people goes a long way, and hearing their feedback is important. If, after a significant test period, tools are not helping, kill them off. Don't use them because that's how it's always been done.
Considering that people have different energy levels when it comes to social interaction, balance is key here. As a leader, you don't want employees to feel completely drained or utterly isolated. By taking these tips into consideration, you can help your workforce transition to the hybrid model in such a way that it'll feel so natural, you'll be calling it just work in the near future.
[ Get exercises and approaches that make disparate teams stronger. Read the digital transformation ebook: Transformation Takes Practice. ]
Ilkka Mäkitalo, CEO and co-founder of Howspace, is also the father of the Howspace digital platform. Ilkka's passion is in participative leadership, digitally facilitated organizational development programs, and the future of work.
Digital transformation: 5 real-world examples
CIO role: 5 strategies for success in 2023


Kris S. (USA)
Roberto (USA) x Sharp Queen (USA), by Princequillo (IRE)
Family 10-a
Kris S. was clearly bred for classic stamina but never had the chance to display his full ability as he was felled by injury after only five starts. His stallion career suggests that he was cut out to be a good one as he became a successful sire who reliably transmitted staying power.
5 starts, 3 wins, 1 second, 0 thirds, US$53,530
Won Bradbury Stakes (USA, 8.5FD, Santa Anita)
Rated at 116 pounds on the Daily Racing Form's Free Handicap for American 3-year-old males of 1980, 10 pounds below champion Temperence Hill.
A dark bay or brown horse, Kris S. stood 17 hands. He was a massive, coarse, big-boned horse with an excellent shoulder. He could be faulted for having his hocks out behind him.
Kris S. led the American general sire list in 2003 according to Thoroughbred Times' rankings; he was fourth behind A.P. Indy according to The Blood-Horse. According to statistics kept by The Jockey Club, he sired 572 winners (66.2%) and 88 stakes winners (10.2%) from 863 named foals; The Blood-Horse credits him with 93 stakes winners (10.8%). His progeny typically had good bone and stayed well.
Notable progeny
Action This Day (USA), Arch (USA), Brocco (USA), Cheval Volant (USA), Evening Kris (USA), Dr. Fong (USA), Hollywood Wildcat (USA), Kicken Kris (USA), Kissin Kris (USA), Kris Kin (USA), Kudos (USA), Lucky Story (USA), My Renee (USA), Prized (USA), Rock Hard Ten (USA), Soaring Softly (USA), Stocks Up (USA), Symboli Kris S. (USA), Vertigineux (USA), You and I (USA)
Foaled in Florida, Kris S. was bred by John Brunetti's Red Oak Farm. He was owned by the Estate of Schunemann & Scully & Yan. He was trained by G. James Sacco. Kris S entered stud in Florida in 1981 at Meadowbrook Farm and was moved to Prestonwood Farm (now WinStar Farm) in Kentucky following the 1993 breeding season. He was pensioned in February 2002 and was humanely destroyed May 7, 2002. due to complications from chronic neurological issues in his neck.
Kris S. is inbred 5x4 to Bull Dog. He is a full brother to Ann's Roberto, dam of stakes winner Abduct (by World Appeal). His dam Sharp Queen is a half sister to Landing Bridge (by First Landing), dam of stakes winners Susans Turn (by On to Glory) and Cowgirl Gone Wrong (by Upper Case) and to Tutasi (by Native Dancer), dam of Group I-placed multiple English stakes winner Mansingh (by Jaipur)
Bridgework (by Occupy), the dam of Sharp Queen, won the 1957 Sorority Stakes. Produced from the Gold Bridge mare Feale Bridge, she is a half sister to Ouragan Connie (by Djeddah), dam of stakes winner Ill Wind (by Blue Prince) and second dam of Grade II winner Windtex.
Kris S. entered stud at an initial stud fee of US$3,500. At his peak, the stallion commanded US$150,000 for his services.
Kris S. was buried on the WinStar Farm grounds in a handcrafted casket painted with the farm's logo.


Guards blinded by chili in Indonesian jailbreak
Prisoners in an Indonesian jail escaped after blinding guards with a liquid laced with fiery chili peppers, an official said Tuesday.
Aug. 22, 2006, 6:50 AM UTC / Source: Reuters
Prisoners in an Indonesian jail escaped after blinding guards with a liquid laced with fiery chili peppers, a police official said on Tuesday.
Eighteen prisoners escaped from the Pematang Siantar Penitentiary in North Sumatra province on Sunday, with 15 later recaptured and three still on the run, said Aspan Nainggolan, a police spokesman.
After being let out of their cells for breakfast, a group of prisoners attacked four guards using chili liquid held in a plastic water bottles and grabbed their keys.
A prison official said that the jail, housing more than 800 prisoners and located about 30 miles from the provincial capital Medan, had never had a break-out like it.
As in many other Asian countries, Indonesians season most meals with chili or use hot chili sauce.


joe moody, visitors' contributions
A Cosmic Shift, the Divine Mother, and a Novel Idea
July 4, 2019 Joe Moody	Leave a comment
Most remember back in 2012 before the Mayan calendar ended, some predicted an apocalypse (humans' first response is usually to be afraid of anything they don't understand). I didn't pay it much mind, already living through other apocalyptic scares, Y2K among them.
But what I didn't know would surprise me later. Many said 2012 wasn't actually the end of the world, but the beginning of a "feminine shift" in world consciousness, ushering in a new age of unity, open communication and compassion toward Mother Earth.
In the summer of 2012, clueless about any feminine shift, I awoke in the middle of the night with an idea for a short story: "What if women ruled the world?"
As I got to writing, I realized it was more than a short story, and it grew into a full-sized novel. Finally, in 2017, my wife told me about this feminine shift in consciousness that was supposed to begin in 2012, right when I started the book.
It made me start to wonder, "Did I write the book, or did the book write me?"
Quandaries aside, the idea behind this predicted cosmic change in consciousness is that Earth has reached a tipping point due to mankind's aggression and greed, but will be saved by restoring the values of the once banished Divine Mother, realizing it's our only choice for survival.
The story I wrote eventually became The Last Leader, featuring a female president who represents the rise in female power, fierce at first to match the aggressive levels of masculine energies. The story wrestles with such themes against a futuristic backdrop, delving into the effect of this shift on men, and glimpsing the possibility of ultimate balance.
As we look out at a world polluted by the excesses of humanity, we see a desperate need to restore the values of the Divine Mother, by showing compassion toward our planet and each other, standing down injustice and using intuition to solve what may seem unsolvable.
Since 2012, there are signs of the shift both real and imagined: On a large scale, 2018 became the "Year of the Woman" with a record number of 117 women sent to Congress, many focused on healing Mother Earth. On a small scale, in 2019, I published my first novel that asked the question, "What if women ruled the world?"
Link for more info about the book is here: www.joemoody.com
the last leader
Excerpt from The Last Leader (Chapter 13) by Joe Moody
The Milky Way marched toward the moon like a procession of candle bearers. Atop the Pink House, the face of the moon reflected upon the glassy surface of a koi pond. A sobbing, swooning tune radiated from a golden harp.
Emperia strummed the harp with eyes closed, creating melodies of pining and regret. She wore a silk gown inspired by the American flag, with silvery stars and red stripes draped down her leg. White flowers adorned her hair like a crown.
Deliberately, her fingers swept the strings as the despondent dirge took form. She swooped up the scale as the pace quickened, plucking with rapid-fire precision, stomping the harp's pedals like weapons of war. At the climax, the pond's surface rippled in cascading circles, and the koi jumped and danced. Finally, with a gentle sweep of the strings, she drifted down to the resolution where chords lingered like clouds. The pond became still again as she returned to the melancholic opening, notes evoking deep violet and blood red hues that gave the moon its howling face.
When she stopped playing, she gazed skyward, her powderwhite skin glowed under the stars. Her red lips quivered as she whispered. "My father, why did you leave me?"
Only silence answered, until the gentlemanly voice of Vincent lifted the mood. "Pardon me, Madam President." He stood in the arched gateway of the rooftop garden in his metallic tuxedo. "I bring good news."
The presence of her robotic confidant pierced through her inner fog like a sunbeam. "Yes, Vincent?"
"We made progress in our search for the rebels. Underwater drones tracked an unidentified submarine that made a brief stop at an island in the Caribbean Sea. There is a high probability we located our runaway vice president, and perhaps a rebel base too."
Emperia's gaze sharpened. All sadness left her body. Confidence bloomed in her expression. She stood up from the harp, straight as a pillar, clasping her hands. "Prepare three warships. Let's show the world what happens to traitors."


Province thumbs nose at courts
Expositor Readers
More from Expositor Readers
Published on: September 11, 2018 | Last Updated: September 11, 2018 6:34 PM EDT
Re: Ford fights back against ruling (Sept. 11)
What an example our provincial government is prepared to set. It's acceptable to ignore the law, and thumb your nose at the courts.
Brian Moore
Respect most vulnerable
Re: Editorial cartoon offensive (Letter, Sept. 11)
The writer is offended that the appointment of a U.S, Supreme Court Justice will have lifelong repercussions and that people will die if Roe v. Wade is repealed That is unfortunate but what about the millions of babies lost already. Apparently that doesn't matter. The letter calls for putting sanity back into politics and restoring order. We all want that but it can only start when we, as a society, respect the most vulnerable among us.
Jerry Bekendam
Brant SPCA deserves better
Re: 'We are in desperate need' (Sept. 10)
Brantford SPCA has been providing an essential service for over 50 years under extreme conditions in its current location. The city donated land at 10 Kraemer's Way as well as $600,000 from the casino legacy fund in 2014 for a new home for the SPCA. Then city council decided to withdraw the donated land and revenue and required the SPCA to purchase a smaller portion of the land for $225,000. The city told the SPCA they it will build its own municipal pound. This will mean a substantial increase in taxes with no clear understanding as to why this decision was made. I have reached out to my councillors and the mayor with no reply. This means a new municipal building to maintain and new employees. My decision will be made at the ballot box and I encourage people to investigate this decision on their own. The SPCA needs to be treated a lot better than this by the city and its elected officials.
L. Walker
Seniors should be priority
Re: Ottawa asked to take over basic income pilot (Sept. 11)
Brantford Mayor Chris Friel and others want Ottawa to take over the basic income pilot being cancelled by the province. They use the excuse that this program was never given a chance. Why is it that Canadian politicians always feel that programs that have failed in other countries will work here? Such a program, after many years, was just cancelled in a Scandinavian country. I suggest these mayors rethink their position. Many seniors are living under the poverty line and the federal government has still done nothing about its promise to raise the old age pension. That should be the priority.
Steve Whines
Brantford Expositor 2018 ©
Doc screening launches lecture series	 Jr. A 99ers look for two straight


'Triage': Kathleen Robertson Joins ABC Medical Drama Pilot
EXCLUSIVE: Kathleen Robertson (Murder in the First) is set as a lead opposite Parisa Fitz-Henley and Michael Ealy in Triage, ABC's second cycle medical drama pilot from David Cornue, Erica Messer, Jon M. Chu and 20th Television.
Created by Cornue, Triage is a character-driven medical drama that follows pioneering surgeon Finley Briar (Fitz-Henley) over three distinct decades at the same hospital. With the evolution of medicine as the backdrop, the show explores the interconnected careers, friendships and romances of Finley and her colleagues, and their tenuous relationship with time.
Robertson will play Virginia Sawyer, the Chief of Surgery at New York Trinity. She is fiery, strong-willed, and laser-focused on fast-tracking her daughter's career, so she has her daughter study under Dr. Finley Briar (Fitz-Henley).
Cornue executive produces alongside Messer who serves as showrunner. Chu will executive produce and direct. Steven Marrs and Courtney Hazlett of OutEast Entertainment also executive produce alongside Caitlin Foito.
Robertson just wrapped production on Lionsgate's contemporary series update of George Huang's 1994 film, Swimming with Sharks. Robertson wrote, produced and appears in the series, which stars Diane Kruger and Kiernan Shipka. Under her first-look development deal with UCP, Robertson is working on feature film adaptations of Chris Cleave's novel Little Bee, Kaui Hart Hemmings' The Possibilities and Dark Horse's Lady Killer comics.
Triage marks Robertson's first return to series television since her starring role in Netflix's family drama, Northern Rescue. She's repped by Untitled Entertainment, CAA, attorney Jamie Feldman, as well as NCA Talent and Play Management in her native Canada.