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.   


 

response 25 of 162:

Jul 1 13:32 UTC 2003

I think partly, too, they got hooked on the big spike in revenue that
happened when people switched from CD to LP and bought new copies of all
the music they already owned.  Now that's gone, and in spite of casting
about a bit they haven't found a format that will let them do that again.

response 27 of 162:

Jul 1 14:35 UTC 2003

No evidence that RIAA is damaged by file swappers?  What do you mean?  They
commissioned studies themselves proving huge damages!  

</sarcasm>

response 29 of 162:

Jul 6 01:20 UTC 2003

  I don't know whether they archive their programs for any length of time,
  but on July 4th the Minnesota Public Radio program "Marketplace", which
  is syndicated on many public stations, had a quite good piece about 
  several musicians who have successfully opted out of the major-label
  system.  As I recall it was at the end of the program.  Also, they
  mentioned that their web site would have additional links to the 
  musicians interviewed and their music.

response 31 of 162:

Jul 9 14:02 UTC 2003

I don't know which is the most secure.  I've been using WinMX, which at
least doesn't come with any spyware.

response 33 of 162:

Jul 9 18:45 UTC 2003

Ah, and here's today's article on this very subject, from Cnet
and Declan McCullagh:
 
"P2P's Little Secret"
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-1023735.html?tag=cd_mh

response 35 of 162:

Jul 15 00:39 UTC 2003

If I borrow a copy of the book from my next door neighbor, would that be a
crime too?  So many of the things have been printed, that I suspect that
anyone who wants to read it could pretty easily borrow it someplace.  Where
is the line?