About Thoughts of a TechnoGeek: This is where I'll post my thoughts, interesting articles, or anything else I want to. If you don't like it, don't read it. David L Brenner my email Subscribe Links
|
|
Sat, 13 Sep 2003
There have been a number of articles put out in recent weeks about P2P networks, file swappers and how the RIAA wants to take them out. Most of this revolves around the 200+ lawsuits that were filed earlier this week against them. My feelings on this subject are mixed. On one hand, the RIAA is perfectly within their rights to sue people that they think are infringing on their intellectual property rights. On the other hand, I don't see how suing people is going to stop this. The thing is if I make a mix tape (or CD) and give it to a friend to listen to, am I breaking the law? Is that fair use? I don't know, but I would venture to guess that most of us have done this, and as far as I know, the RIAA isn't going after everyone that does this.I know that if I was selling copies, that this would be a problem because I am directly profiting from this activity. The biggest difference I see between a mix tape and the file swapping system is a matter of scale. Computers have made it very simple to do this. What this is pointing out to me is that there is a market for this type of thing and that is where the RIAA should be focusing their efforts. Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate for intellectual property rights. I think that is among the many things that our founding fathers got right. The problem is, if you aren't sharing the IP, what is the need for protecting it? I can go to a library and read any book that I want (as long as its there of course). This means that the library is purchasing a copy and I'm not. Since only one person can be reading a book at the same time (lets not get into the "well I could read over your shoulder"-type of hair splitting) it doesn't seem to be a problem. This allows for the free distribution of ideas and everyone wins. Does this mean that if I go to the library, I can no longer borrow a CD to listen to? Now, I know that if I want to have a copy of the book, its wrong to photocopy it for my own. Besides being more expensive than purchasing a copy (without stealing photocopying services) you are depriving the manufacturer of a sale. But if I want to copy certain pages to distribute to a class I'm teaching, that's okay. So, is it okay to copy a portion of an album? How is this different? I see file swapping as a valuable tool. If I listen to the radio, I periodically hear a song that I really like and I may purchase the disk. Lately, I'll purchase just the track from the iTunes music store. So, if I want to scan a fileswapping service for tracks, I'll likely purchase things that I like to support the artists. The other thing that I've seen lots of people do is download MP3s of things they have already purchased rather than rip the tracks themselves. A lot of people have extensive vinyl collections, and why should they need to purchase another copy of a song they've already paid for? The problem I see with declining sales, which is one of the reasons that the RIAA is citing for going after music swappers, is that they don't want to admit that a lot of music coming out lately sucks. I think that declining sales for music has more to do with the lack of quality or anything different than file swapping. My personal opinion is that the RIAA going after file swappers is going to do more harm to the industry than any harm that the swappers will cause. They are going to create a backlash that won't go away. The solution to this problem is to follow Apple's lead and embrace the concept of electronic distribution and to not treat customers like criminals. Apple got the model right. Let people download music for a price and use the music in the same ways that they can currently use CDs, tapes or vinyl. This is the surest way to keep the customers. File swapping came around because there wasn't a commercial alternative. None of the other models in the marketplace allow for the free use of the purchased media that Apple allows. The alternative is for the RIAA to continue to go after elderly grandparents and 12 year old girls.
G forwarded this link to me a while back. Leave it to the Japanese to figure out a way to do Matrix-like SFX w/o a computer. Every once in a while, you come across an author that you really love. Neal Stephenson is one of those authors. I've read everything that I can get my hands on. Even stuff that he's written under a pseudonym. His latest book is Cryptonomicon. At this point it's not a new book, but I just re-read it while I was on vacation in preparation for his new book that is being released this month. Basically, it is a story told from three different view points. Two of them are during World War II and one of them is in "the present". There is a relationship between all of the characters in the book, regardless of the time period. I'll let you figure it out when you read it. The coolest thing about the book is how everything is tied together. Stephenson has a way of presenting things in a non-linear fashion and making the story flow. This, and his ability to create believable, mutli-dimensional characters is why I love reading his work. As most of you know, I love reading about crypto. It is one of the central themes of the book, and while many of the names of programs in the book have been changed, it is fun to see "real world" technology intelligently weaved into a story. I read this book when it was first released. I didn't like it as much as I enjoyed it this time around. I'm not sure why. I think part of the problem was that I wasn't able to read it in as short a time period as I would have liked the first time. The only time I had was during lunch at work, and that was during a particularly stressing project. I still think the story ends too soon, and I'd like to see more about what happens with the characters, but it didn't bother me as much the second time. |