response 1 of 162:

Jun 26 22:37 UTC 2003

We start off with a bang this quarter.  On Thursday, the Recording
Industry Association of America announced that it would start
collecting evidence against Internet users whose file sharing 
software is offering copyrighted files online.  The RIAA said
it would file "hundreds" of lawsuits in 6-8 weeks.  This news
story is in most online media, so I won't bother with a link.
 
(The new game is called the Lawsuit Lottery.  Perhaps every month, 
several hundred of the estimated 50 million Americans using 
file sharing software will be picked to lose most everything 
they own.)
 
In other legal proceedings, 24-year-old Kerry Gonzalez pled guilty
to criminal copyright infringement for posting a working advance print  
of THE HULK to the net.  A good story on his case is at:
 
http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-artslife-hulk0626,0,763448.story?coll=b
al-business-headlines

Mr. Gonzalez faces up to three years in prison and $250,000 in 
fines.  The cited article does not say this, but this is 
likely one of the first convictions under the 
No Electronic Theft (NET) act; prior to that act, it was essentially
impossible to get a criminal conviction for copyright infringement
not done for financial gain.

Vivaldi was especially steamed at Mr. Gonzalez for making the 
early work print of THE HULK available, because viewer reactions
to that print generated a good deal of negative word-of-mouth on 
various internet forums.

response 3 of 162:

Jun 27 01:52 UTC 2003

I don't.  While this may be pertinent for currently active performers, 
I'm not sure how strong the argument applies to older music, 
especially stuff that's out of print.  Most of my files are a handfull 
of years old; quite a few are about 10 years or so.  How often are you 
going to be able to find Jazzy Redd's "I Am a Dope Fiend?" or B-sides 
from 'singles' compilations that I *know* the market usually pulls 
after a while?

P2P sharing can operate a useful niche, I think; they just haven't 
regulated it right yet.  Apple's iTunes and RealOne's Rhapsody are 
being put out for a reason-- and the latter has got to mean something, 
i.e. the concept is good enough for competition.

I think the RIAA is fine is suing folks that run filesharing websites--
 that's a rather grand scale.  But attempting to sue every little file 
sharer, especially someone like me who usually picks songs that are 
old and not likely selling a lot, is completely ludicrous.  If the 
music industry would grow up and start putting CD prices back where 
they should be, I think it might help.  The other thing is that they 
seem to be milking their new talent too hard.  It's been noted older 
acts are still solid moneymakers and I'm not completely sure the 
industry is taking time to let some of their newcomers continue to 
build a name for themselves.  (I could be talking out my ass-- 
comments, please.)

response 5 of 162:

Jun 27 04:35 UTC 2003

Vivaldi?

response 7 of 162:

Jun 27 04:48 UTC 2003

 :)

response 9 of 162:

Jun 27 13:40 UTC 2003

I'm kind of in the same boat as jaklumen.  The vast majority of the file
trading I've done has been to get stuff that the industry has decided
isn't economically feasible to publish -- out-of-print albums and TV
show episodes that haven't come out on DVD.  I can understand them
wanting to go after people who are pirating the latest Metallica album,
but I think it's a bit unfair to hoard intellectual property, refuse to
make it available, and then declare it illegal to make other copies of it.

response 13 of 162:

Jun 27 22:06 UTC 2003

resp:9 The other thing I used to do was buy used music.  Sadly, deja 
vu discs and tapes at the Parkway in Richland, WA closed shop sometime 
ago, when, I have no idea.  Their prices and quality was really nice-- 
the local Hastings chain, by comparison, had worse prices and the CDs 
were usually in worse shape.  So I don't feel like I have any real 
alternative right now.

resp:10 Have you not checked out Rhapsody, by Real Networks?  I know 
not everyone is thrilled with the RealOne player, but I believe this 
is the PC competition right now, and I think the songs are slightly 
cheaper (79 cents).

response 15 of 162:

Jun 28 06:30 UTC 2003

The Washington Post ran an overview piece on the race by the authorized
download services to tap into the user base of the unauthorized file
sharing systems.  
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29635-2003Jun25.html
 
There's one quote I wanted to mention:  following a discussion of the 
tremendous wealth and breadth of music available on the unauthorized 
services, we read this:
 
>  RealNetworks Chief Strategy Officer Richard Wolpert questioned the 
>  need to have millions of available songs, saying "80 to 90 percent 
>  of the songs people download [on free services] are the same couple 
>  hundred songs." 

>  If pay services can provide most of the songs people are looking for, 
>  and do it in a safe, user-friendly environment, typical consumers will 
>  use them, he added. 

Who cares about all the music below the Top 100?  Those people don't count,
in the corporate view of the future.

response 17 of 162:

Jun 28 08:43 UTC 2003

Huh?

response 19 of 162:

Jun 30 15:55 UTC 2003

Re 16-17 (speaking as the parent of a 4-year-old): Just like it's nice to
have 64 crayons in the box, even though you may never have a need for
burnt sienna or raw umber.

response 21 of 162:

Jun 30 23:00 UTC 2003

  That doesn't make much sense to me as an explanation for the behavior
  being discussed.  Why would they be willing to open up the part of their
  catalog that accounts for 95% of the sales but reluctant to offer the rest?  

response 23 of 162:

Jul 1 05:23 UTC 2003

This whole thing is actually an exercise on the part of the recording
industry to direct attention elsewhere from the fundamental problem. 
They are producing crap and they are producing it on media that for all
intents and purposes doesn't wear out.  And they are doing so in a
corporate environment burdened by huge debt generated from the focus on
revenue based compensation of management due to laws passed under the
clinton administration (you knew I couldn't pass that one up even though
it is a fact).  Instead of being compensated by returning profits to
stockholders in the form of dividends corporate management came to be
compensated by increases in revenue generating increased value of stock.
Thus the flurry of mergers and acquisitions and thus the incentive to
'turnaround' transactions which did absolutely nothing to profit -
indeed in a small way did damage - but generated nice revenue numbers.

So you have a general problem in the general case that is applied to the
recording industry where a general downturn in sales - you have less
young people to begin with who are the one's buying the hot new acts. 
Plus you have a product that is generally eternal - once the babyboomers
bought all their tunes on CD they generally stopped buying huge amounts
of tunes.  

The Internet magnified a problem that had always been there, those too
cheap to buy the original product prefering instead to 'tape' the tunes
-accept a 2nd or X-generation product that unfortunately in this case
were generally as good as the 1st generation product.  It is easy and it
produces good results.  The now dept burdened recording industry looks
for a convenient excuse for piss poor financials and settles on a
convenient and visible target - the Internet file swappers - as a reason
why they are moribund.  Sure the Internet makes it easy to swap music.
The problem with the RIAA et al's case is that there is absolutely no
proof that they suffer any major damage as a result.  I personally would
suggest that the practice of sharing music has been common among that
market segment as long as there has been an ability to easily record
replays of the media.  It used to be record to tape, now it is CD to CD.
The difference is only in the quality not the activity.  Again, the
Internet makes it easier to do many things on a larger scale - among
them distribute files that happen to be music.  I would suggest however
in this particular case that were the RIAA et al able to completely shut
down the Internet file sharing and develop foolproof and working copy
protection they would see little or no increase in revenue or profit as
those modern versions of those 'tapers' would simply revert to exactly
that level of technology - thier TARGETS weren't their market in the
first place.  There already is a huge market for movies even on quality
packaged DVD that are clearly somebody in a movie theater with a
camcorder.  There would simply be a huge market for those that would be
satisfied with CDs of music duped from copy proof media played in a
studio and re-recorded digitally -heck, while driving you probably
couldn't even tell the difference between an original and such.

It is only marginally less convenient to dupe music CDs borrowed from
the local library than downloaded off the Internet.  What are they going
to do next, go after libraries?

And its not like the actual artists see a wif of a hint of any change in
their revenue stream regardless and if they are clever they should adopt
the open source model in their own version - a buck from many people
that like what you are doing and want to support you so you can continue
to do good stuff may be more than what the artist might get a small
fraction of in the old model of the business.

Personally, I don't do the download bootleg music thing, but I sure
think that an industry that doesn't adapt to the current realities of
the situation is doomed to go the way of the quill pen - which you can
still buy to this day but there ain't a whole lot of money or market
for.