internet freedom fundraiser, omnivorous gamer, repatriated suburbanite

A friend from USC, @brucecha, posted a link to Between the Lines this deliciously expansive feature in Los Angeles Magazine about parking. The blurb that caught my attention explained one dimension of the difference between LA’s many soulless public spaces and San Francisco’s many vibrant ones:

 “L.A.,” says Shoup, “required 50 times more parking under Disney Hall than San Francisco would allow at their own hall.” Downtown already had an oversupply of garages and lots where music fans could leave their cars. “After a concert in San Francisco,” says Shoup, “the streets are full of people walking to their cars, eating in restaurants, stopping into bars and bookstores. In L.A.? The bar next door at Patina is a ghost town.” ¹

But the mind-boggling basic facts and figures in the story steal the show:

Parking spaces can be amazingly expensive to fabricate. In aboveground structures they cost as much as $40,000 apiece. Belowground, all that excavating and shoring may run a developer $140,000 per space. The debt on Disney Hall’s garage would have to be paid off for decades to come, and as it turned out, a minimum schedule of 128 annual shows would be enough to cover the bill. The figure “128” was even written into the L.A. Philharmonic’s lease. [...] [C]oncertgoers—who lay out $9 to enter the garage—have steadily funded performances that exist to cover the true price of their parking.

Read more: http://www.lamag.com/features/2011/12/01/between-the-lines

The TV show Glee recently aired an episode featuring a group singing a cover of “Baby Got Back.” The cover has largely been identified as the creative work of Jonathan Coulton, though Glee hasn’t publicly acknowledged his role. Fox is also openly selling the Glee version of the song on iTunes. Coulton’s fans (me included!) feel irritated-to-indignant about this.

In response, Coulton has reposted the cheekily named ”Baby Got Back (In the Style of Glee)” for sale and it’s identical to the version he originally released in 2005. Because Coulton is awesome, he’s promised to donate all proceeds through February to charity.

Coulton has paraphrased Fox’s thoughts on the matter thusly: “[Fox] also got in touch with my peeps to basically say that they’re within their legal rights to do this, and that I should be happy for the exposure (even though they do not credit me, and have not even publicly acknowledged that it’s my version – so you know, it’s kind of SECRET exposure).” I added the emphasis there, because I’m curious about something:

What if Coulton is indeed “better off” with his song being used in Glee? ^{1 2}

It’s an effects-focused thought experiment that could highlight (a) what exactly we should be mad about and (b) what’s the most productive course of action if you’re an artist who gets Glee’d (or if you’re a fan of an artist who gets Glee’d). Promotion certainly has value if it results in conversions — people becoming customers or fans.

Here are some of the more detailed figures I’d love to know:

How much does Coulton make if Glee uses his song but also finds a way to acknowledge him? In other words, what is attribution’s role in turning mass exposure into a meaningful relationship? As it stands, the melodic “Baby Got Back” version aired on Glee has reached some millions of people, and in theory, some of the lucky, more curious viewers probably discovered Jonathan Coulton as a result. But how much stronger would that discovery effect have been if the relationship were made more explicit in he show itself?

There’s a huge range of potentially attributive behavior to consider. Glee could have mentioned Coulton somehow in the credits (a “weak” attribution), or they could have invited him to make a cameo in the episode itself (a “strong” attribution).

How much does Coulton make if Glee uses his song, but he doesn’t get a bunch of press as a result? This question is primarily concerned with the effects of self-promotion. Coulton has an engaged, connected fan base and they’ve been able to organically generate additional attention out of this David and Goliath story. As of this writing, Coulton’s single on the iTunes top singles chart is number 95, so it seems fair to say that Coulton has been able to catalyze this attention into something productive.

See, I told you his single is in the Top 100.

In some ways, this is a question about the repeatability of Fox’s claim that they’re doing Coulton a favor—if they did the same thing to a more obscure artist, would it be more helpful or more exploitative, and to what degree?

How much does Coulton make if Glee just pays for the song somehow? Copyright heavyweights can go into greater detail, but this is my handwavy attempt to characterize a theoretical figure representative of a one-off payment to Colton, whether for licensing, or a contract for services, etc.

Finally, this might be considered the “control”: How much does Coulton make if Glee just features a different song entirely and none of this happens? This figure could help establish a baseline for comparison. Ideally, with all these figures, one could make an attempt to generalize, like, “When Glee attributed a song, there’s a bump of X above the norm; when Glee doesn’t attribute, there’s a smaller bump of Y instead; therefore, to be a better creative citizen, Glee should attribute when inspired by artists.”

I’m not sure how to ballpark these numbers in a meaningful way, but it feels good to spitball.

Like other fans, I reacted to the news with indignation, because it feels like Glee is exploiting the work of an artist I appreciate without “giving back” to that artist or the creative community. But I’m increasingly inclined to step back and apply other lenses to such events—especially if they move me emotionally—in the effort to uncover a nugget of unconventional wisdom or innovation.