Excerpt from important new book, "Television Disrupted" by Shelly Palmer, 1st Vice President of National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Chairman of Advanced Media Technology Emmy Awards, and award winning inventor, technologist, composer, and television producer:

"Record Industry vs. Consumers

"When the history of the recording industry is written, they will cite the RIAA's lawsuits against their customers as their darkest hour....[M]ost people think of it as winning the battle and losing the war.

"The recording industry is now an enemy of the public and this is truly sad. Consumers love the artists and hate the unbranded, faceless, nameless distributors that keep them from accessing what they now believe should be totally free. Of all the battles caused by the transition to networked media, the most bloodied and most devastated industry will be recorded music.

"The missed opportunity to understand the consumer and the unwillingness to adjust its thinking almost pale by comparison to the cultural and societal damage that the industry's collective "head in the sand" position has caused.....It is a business nightmare from which the industry will not awake....."

For more information about "Television Disrupted", go to www.televisiondisrupted.com

more like "head up the ass" position

""The recording industry is now an enemy of the public and this is truly sad. Consumers love the artists and hate the unbranded, faceless, nameless distributors that keep them from accessing what they now believe should be totally free. Of all the battles caused by the transition to networked media, the most bloodied and most devastated industry will be recorded music."

The "ENEMY OF THE CONSUMER" drumbeat is one that I began stressing here and in other venues long ago.

But, I wish to take issue with one statement, respectfully...
"Consumers love the artists and hate the unbranded, faceless, nameless distributors that keep them from accessing what they now believe should be totally free."

Some consumers may "love the artists"...after all, the basis of the word "fan" is "fanatic". I think that many more love the music than love the artist, because , unless they are truly "fans" then they probably don't know all that much about the artist themselves.

Fans though, often do try to learn as much as possible about the artist's personal life.

But that is not my area of contention.

Should the music be totally free?

Musicians deserve to make a living, and if their music is popular, they deserve to make a good living, just as actors who are very popular, also deserve to reap the benefits of their popularity,

I have not taken the stance that music should be totally free. I've been, through the years, more than happy to spend a lot of my hard earned money on music...starting with viny records, then eight tracks, then cassettes, then audio CDs. I do refuse to download music and pay for it. Online MP3s are lossy by nature, and I would no more buy an MP3 than I would buy a JPG picture file.

I've downloaded pictures of the Mona Lisa in jpg format, but, is it really the MONA LISA? NO. It is lrepresentation of the Mona Lisa, but, nothing more.

Should someone have the right to steal (yes, I'm using the word steal, but in the sense of true theft) the Mona Lisa from the museum? Absolutely not. Should a person have the right to download a JPG representation of the Mona Lisa from a website? I say yes.

Should a person be able to steal an audio CD by the Rolling Stones from a record store? Absolutely not.
Should they be able to download an MP3 of Stones song from a filesharing service? I believe so.

In the first instance, the owner is deprived completely of the value and usage of the owned commodity.

In the second, the copyright owner still has the original and can make money from it.

Now, let's say someone makes an MP3 of one Rolling Stones tune..let's say SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL...and makes it available on a filesharing network, and millions of copies of the MP3 (NOT COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL FORMAT ON THE CD WITH ALL THE DATA INTACT) are loose on the internet.

If the owner of the copyright rights turns around and licenses that tune for use on a national commercial, is their ability to license this tune, or the money they get from allowing its usage on a commercial, diminished by one cent by the fact there are a million or ten million MP3 representations out there on the Net? No. If the company wishing to use the song said, I'm sorry but we can only you pay you five dollars for using your song because there are millions of MP3s of this tune out on the net, would the copyright owner accept this as a valid reason not to pay a large fee for use of the song?

Bill Gates paid millions of dollars in an auction for a Codex by Leonardo Da Vinci. Now, there are books with pictures of Leonardo's Codexes out there, there are jpg's on the Net of the pictures, but did that diminish the worth of the original document? NO!

Now, in trademark law, they talk about unauthorized usage of a trademark as "diluting" the trademark, and claims against people using trademarks in an unauthorized manner, will usually use this "dilution" claim.

But, are original songs on audio CDs diluted or diminished in worth because there are lossy representations of them in MP3 format loose on the Net?

Are Gucci purses less valuable because knockoffs are created in Korea? I take the stand that they are not, because real Gucci purses are of a certain quality , and the knockoffs are not of such good quality.

All that being said, any artist has a right to benefit financially from their own creations, and if an artist is personally upset when unauthorized representations of their work are made, they should have the right PERSONALLY to pursue a suit if they have registered the copyright to their tune.

My main problem is the RIAA or MPAA going after people who, under my definition, have NOT made real COPIES (i.e. with the meaning that a copy is an exact duplicate of the original inf form, format, and 100 poercent of the original data) but only altered representations of the original, that, although to most ears may sound similar, are not exact copies.

For most of copyright law and trademark law, the real problem was people creating knockoffs and selling them as the original item.

Filesharing networks involve people sharing these representations, and for the most part, there is no selling from the person offering to share with the perons making a digital copy of what the person is offering to share.

What if the caveat was such that the person sharing said "this is a sound file that sounds a lot like the song XYZ by group UVW...it is not the original real tune, and does not contain all the data...it is a sample of what the song file sounds like and is offered to allow those downloading a copy of this song file, to evaluate whether they wish to purchase the original or not.

Could this be a Fair Use usage? It is not being sold as the original. It is being used for the listener to evaluate it, and it doesn't contain all of the original, just a digital sampling.

Just some thoughts.

"So it goes." - Vonnegut

~Code

typo..."viny" should be "vinyl"

"Should the music be totally free?
Musicians deserve to make a living, and if their music is popular, they deserve to make a good living, just as actors who are very popular, also deserve to reap the benefits of their popularity,..."

If musicians are still to make a living they must find ways to do it without expecting return on the songs themselves. Perhaps they can make a living on touring and merchandise.

The perfect replicator has been unleashed: personal computer + internet has spelled the end for several business models. This is evolution and must be embraced. The value of a song in dollars is nill. How many people will suffer and be sued before the all-powerful corporate america accepts its fate.

Filesharing will continue, darknets will continue, people will still continue filling each others' ipods, burning CDs for friends, etc... DRM will continue to fail and be meaningless annoyance. Someday, maybe a long time from now, the record industry will realize it cannot force the entire world to act like it did in 1985.

Few organisms die without a fight, and the RIAA is fighting to keep itself from disappearing in a blip of insignificance. Who will they draw into this fight? Who will they trample on?

YOU

They will also buy off your government and overwhelm your judicial system.Why? They want to keep making money and no tactic is too sleazy to put into practice.

Message from America's youth to the record industry: "We Hate You"

Message from the record industry:
"Fuck you. Fuck talent. We own your representatives. Buy our shit you snots. Everyone on this planet it a criminal"

How would you like a work for an organization that is universally loathed by most of the planet?

Should musicians expect to make a living?

Not from the music, but maybe from the bigger experience he/she/they can offer.

The musician's job description has changed, it's no longer the same job. The original job went the way of the horse and buggy.