« August 28, 2003 | Main | September 07, 2003 »
Friday, September 5, 2003
Tommy Tomlinson on Filesharing
The link below will probably die in the next 30 days or so, and the "quick price" to license a copy of it for this site is about $500 more than I'm willing to spend. Enjoy "Fair Use" while we've still got it: excerpts for the purpose of critique, analysis, or commentary.
Here's the link: Charlotte.com - Your Guide to Charlotte
…excerpts…
Posted on Fri, Sep. 05, 2003
Here's another one of those times when a good thing happens for a bad reason.
COMMENTARY
In long run, free tunes are no bargain
TOMMY TOMLINSONCD prices are going down. Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, is cutting wholesale prices by 25 percent. The other big companies should follow.
…
Now I'll be more willing to spring for that CD that my more-hip friends recommended, or the one I read a review about, or the one that just sounds good in the store.
The record companies are praying this happens. Sales have dropped 30 percent in the past three years.
…
How can the business possibly be hurting?
Because so many people keep stealing music.
…
The folks who do this call it file sharing, which it is, in the same way that shoplifting steaks from the grocery store is meat sharing.
…
...and my response...
From: "Fritz Knack" <fritz@knacks.us>
To: ttomlinson@charlotteobserver.com
Subject: File Sharing
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:55:44 -0400
Hi, Tommy--
I know you're probably tired of hearing about it by now, so I'll try to be brief: The only "evidence" that file sharing has actually reduced the number of CDs sold is that the RIAA says so. Nonsense. There is, in fact, substantial "scientific" and anecdotal support indicating that it's the economy eating into disposable income, the mass-marketing of Britney clones and boy bands, the resentment toward payola for radio play, price fixing, the RIAA's apparent goal of alienating its customers, a (misguided?) Robin Hood complex among folks who want to see the bands get paid instead of the distributors, the knowledge that we're already "paying" for what we copy through built-in subsidies on blank digital (but not analog) media, and a vast number of other factors that have caused sales to drop.
<aside class="irresistable">
It ain't the same as meat sharing. If I pocket a T-Bone, the grocer is out the wholesale cost and you can't come along behind me to buy it. That's theft because it's depriving someone else of compensation for property. If I download a file, it doesn't prevent a CD sale, and in fact it can be reasonably argued that there's a better chance I'll end up buying the CD because I liked it. A better--but still imperfect--metaphor would be someone stepping behind the deli counter and putting out a cheese sample.
Basically, the whole idea of IP "theft" and "piracy" is a broken metaphor propagated mostly by those with a vested interest in the distortion. Your column is no doubt copyrighted, probably by the paper. But wouldn't both you and the paper actually benefit if a community of bloggers started exchanging copies of your column and talking you up?
</aside>
I stumbled across an appropriate post today on one of the geek sites I visit regularly. I don't agree with everything the author says, but the links will give you access to more of what's going on: (Kuro5hin link). I'm glad to see this debate finally entering the mainstream media, and I'm pleased to see you join the fray, but it's a much bigger and more complicated story than sales being down because of file sharing.
Best regards,
Fritz
Posted 09/05/2003 16:15 by Fritz | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Are you a NeoCon?
Big surprise: I'm a liberal. ("Results are not scientific.")
Link first found on Metafilter.
US News / Special: Empire Builders / Neocon quiz | Christian Science Monitor
Posted 09/05/2003 13:19 by Fritz | Comments (0) | TrackBack