-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/technology/22neco.html

September 22, 2003
NEW ECONOMY
Music's Struggle With Technology
By JOHN SCHWARTZ


LIFE, like television, is full of reruns. And long-time watchers of technology trends say the entertainment industry's attack on peer-to-peer software - the technology at the heart of the song-swapping mania - follows a familiar pattern.

Every technology can, of course, be used for evil or good purposes. Cars can be used in bank robberies, and radiation can cure cancer. But many new technologies go through a stage of demonization, and communications technologies come in for an especially tough hit from people who feel threatened by them.

Long before girding against the Internet, for example, the entertainment industry objected to cassettes and videotapes because they would allow people to copy music and programming without making additional payments. Even FM radio was opposed by the record companies at the outset because the high fidelity broadcasts were free. The early defenders of the industry did not understand the ways that the power of the new communications tool would help them market their goods to a broader audience.

The current fight over peer-to-peer technology closely resembles a grand battle in the 1990's over encryption technology, which secures the contents of communications from prying eyes. In that case, the opponent was not the entertainment industry, but the Clinton administration and its law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which tried to restrict the use and spread of strong encryption ("crypto," in geekspeak). The technology was an essential tool for businesses and consumers who wanted to protect privacy; because of their resistance to the government crackdown, many encryption restrictions have been lifted.

But, at the time, government officials argued that crypto, if unrestricted, would bring disaster upon disaster. The Clinton administration encouraged the adoption of encryption products with a "backdoor" that government could unlock.
"Uncrackable encryption will allow drug lords, terrorists and even violent gangs to communicate with impunity," Louis J. Freeh, then director of the F.B.I., testified before a Senate committee in 1997.

Similar accusations have been lodged against peer-to-peer - or P2P, as it is commonly known - which also has the potential to become a powerful tool for network communications and pooling computer resources. The entertainment industry has tried to portray the networks as hotbeds of crime and havens for child pornography. Yet many in the tech world say there are so many possible uses for P2P that "it's impossible to imagine them not being developed," said Lance Cottrell, the president and founder of a company that provides tools for enhancing privacy online. "Music was just the first killer app, but I think it will be the first of many."

Mr. Cottrell said that efforts to restrict access to P2P technology will not deter bad people but the efforts will hinder honest users. "People who really desire to steal will find ways of doing it," he said. But as with encryption, "restricting it means it is only available to the real bad guys."

The potential public benefits - like new computer networks that make worker collaboration easier, à la the entrepreneur Ray Ozzie's Groove Networks, or clusters of PC's linked to pool their power and resources - could be delayed in the P2P fight, just as the tug of war over cryptography hindered the ability of business to protect communications and databases from intruders, said Bruce Schneier, a security expert and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." "In both cases, a large well-funded organization is fighting the little guy."

The similarities do not stop there, Mr. Schneier said, because in both cases legal remedies have been sought "to solve an inherently technological problem." Those seeking to restrict the new technology are using "legal intimidation" to fight their battles, he said. And, he predicted, the ultimate outcome will be similar: "Strong crypto would inevitably be used. Digital files are inevitably copyable." The real goal of the pushback in both cases, he said, is to delay change.

A former government official who fought on the opposite side of the crypto battle from Mr. Schneier says the similarities between that fight and the battle over file sharing are striking - but so are the differences. Stewart Baker, former general counsel for the National Security Agency, said, "The N.S.A. had a lot of clout, but it didn't have political action committees." The entertainment industry's political influence has already manifested itself in
such laws as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which made it easier to go after digital pirates.

But file trading has things going for it that encryption never did, Mr. Schneier said: ease of use and products that millions of average consumers crave. That popularity, he said, could eventually tip the balance in favor of the file traders. Federal lawmakers are questioning the industry's tactics, and he predicted that politicians at the state level - "where intellectual property interests just haven't been active" in making political contributions - would begin rising to the file traders' defense. When that happens, he said, the tide is likely to turn, because "people who have to buy their friends don't have any when it matters,'' he said.

"Money is nice, but voters matter," he added.

If Hollywood cares to learn from the crypto wars, the lesson might be that it is more realistic to adapt to powerful technology, rather than quixotically try to block it. "It's unstoppable," said Elan Oren, the chief executive of iMesh, a peer-to-peer file sharing company based in Israel.

Technologies can be stubborn. Efforts to knock them down can send them rebounding back with a new twist. In the case of encryption, the technology continued to grow more powerful and researchers poked holes in the government's weaker alternatives. In the case of peer-to-peer applications, the makers have found increasingly clever ways to help traders act anonymously, and without a centralized service that can be shut down. "That's where the behavior of the industry up to now actually got us," Mr. Oren said.

If pushed further, he said, the P2P makers will eventually offer complete anonymity for users. If that happens, he predicted, "we'll see something nobody wants, including the industry": a cumbersome and expensive system of high-tech copyright protection required by law. Mr. Oren said he believed that the industry could reshape itself to woo file traders, converting them to file payers and saving their businesses. "If we convert 10 to 20 percent, it's a huge success," he said.

But for now, Mr. Oren says, he sees only counterproductive delays, and an underlying attitude from industry that seems almost Luddite. "From 1999 to 2001, if you enabled the R.I.A.A. to have the plug of the Internet," he said, referring to the Recording Industry Association of America, "they would unplug it."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

This man needs a plane ticket to Washington.

"From 1999 to 2001, if you enabled the R.I.A.A. to have the plug of the Internet," he said, referring to the Recording Industry Association of America, "they would unplug it."

That is a perfect analogy of the RIAA. If the RIAA don't like it, then it must be bad. If the consumers like it then according to the RIAA we are a bunch of dummies.

Wow, someone at the Times has played the reality card. Thank you Mr. Schwartz, the fruit baskets in the mail. In an earlier article "What to do now?" I was discussing the amount of press our issues are recieving. Grand bonus that the "tides they are a changing".
Now we are seeing something the industry never ever wanted, plain truth, right out in the open. The record industry has invested a considerable amount of energy in mantaining the Rock&Roll mythology. Between "There goes the last DJ" and inquiring reporters such as Mr. Schwartz that mythology is crumbling.
And yes, press is getting easier to get. I recieved a call just two days ago for a booking on the food network, hmm, interesting. I am a musician and worked for a number of years as a chef so it's not suprising, but then again they called me. Watch out RIAA they're putting us on the TV!
Music as a business is a rough trade. Many of the readers here now this well. This whole conflict is teetering on the brink of coming down in favor of reason and truth, so once again thank you Mr. Schwartz.

I believe that p2p file sharing will eventually find its way into the main stream just the same way cassette taping radio stations or video taping of movies off tv broad casts have. IMHO, you do get an inferior product which some people find acceptable. In the past, this has become fair use and it will in this case also.

The people who do accept these watered down versions of the product do not now nor ever have been a major customer demographic for the recording or movie industry. To label them as thieves is more of an injustice than the “crime” they are allegedly committing.

It is only now in the business world that we are constantly under micro-management to increase profits while reducing expenses like never before. In my profession, what once made one a hero, bottom line wise, will get you fired today. It has always been a tactic of the incompetent managers to attempt to point the finger toward something that is completely out of their control when brought to task about falling profits and performance. The boards of directors have no hearts or sympathy either and I’ve also noticed that the managers that do this are soon history and the new “young lions” that replace them find profits in an environment that they’re predecessors couldn’t. They do this by embracing the adverse conditions and finding a way to make money on it. Their predecessors couldn’t and this is what makes the business world continue to grow and evolve.

We are witnessing the changing of the guard in the music industry and it is unfortunate that a few people who are not able to do defend themselves are caught in this war of management survival, one which the old guard is destined to loose. The mere fact that it has come this far is evidence of that fact and I have seen it repeated over and over, although not with this level of precedence which is due to the huge amounts of money and government corruption that is prevalent today.

if we didnt evolve where would we be?
(shouts out to code....wherever you are)

CriticalError, you've hit the nail square-on.
Even Hilary "Butch" Rosen has said that mp3's are an inferior copy. I agree with that statement, as most people do.

So if mp3's are inferior, then what in the heck are they raising such a stink over?

It must all come down to control and greed. It is therefore imparitive
on our part, to give them less of each by boycotting.

And yes I am registered and ready.(although I have always exorsized my right to vote.)

WABBITMAN

If it wasn't for p2p, how would I have found that song from the last episode of Friends, "Untitled" by Interpol, or half the music used in the Mitsubishi car commercials, these aren't listed in the credits, thanks to p2p I'm discovering new music, which I WOULD OF GONE OUT AND BOUGHT, but since the RIAA is acting like a 2 year old in a damn sandbox right now we are boycotting, way to go RIAA, way to run a company.

I think the NYT has come down on our side.

See: "Upstart Labels See File Sharing as Ally, Not Foe" on the web homepage.

P2P has many uses. Im currently running a small download group. We are going to systematicly download every good anime on sharereactor, and exchange on CDs. Ok, its still an infringement, but as few of those programs are available in english I think using fansubs is excuseable. Anyway, the official dubs usually have scenes missing or heavily edited.

~quote~
But file trading has things going for it that encryption never did, Mr. Schneier said: ease of use and products that millions of average consumers crave. That popularity, he said, could eventually tip the balance in favor of the file traders. Federal lawmakers are questioning the industry's tactics, and he predicted that politicians at the state level - "where intellectual property interests just haven't been active" in making political contributions - would begin rising to the file traders' defense. When that happens, he said, the tide is likely to turn, because "people who have to buy their friends don't have any when it matters,'' he said.

"Money is nice, but voters matter," he added.

~quote~

Well, well, well, wonder if we could get this though the RIAA and their supporters' heads.

"This debate over music keeps coming back to the same thing. Despite all of the trappings and new ways to look at the issue, the fact is that some people just don't like the music."

Hilary B. Rosen
Before the Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Sept. 20, 2000

see the problum is for the riaa and thair labels is most of the music buying public that buys the new
music thay are trying to sell are under 18 years old that sed kids under 18 don't have cerdit cards to buy music online and thair parents don't want them to buy this music any way so online music to the riaa is not some thing thay want to hop on bord with thats why we are at this point thay did not want to bring music online in the friest place becose kids would not buy it. so now thay are forced to evolve ok now thay look at the bottom line if thay release music on to the net thats fully legal whos going to buy it? no one that thay want to just old folks who are looking for that one song from a bettals album.thay know this it will be the end of thair one hit wonder 18 doller CDs and that cuts about half thair income opps my bad i'm a consumer that don't like buying crap and thay some day may see the light thay will keep thair brians working on an answer and will crash and brun doing so keep up the good work ya'll thair is nothing thay can do except losse this music war

I was going online back when there was nothing but BBS's, and a 2400 baud modem was fast. And I was DL files back then, just as I do now (only a lot faster). Wonder what took the RIAA so long to snap?

Great quote George.

I guess i hadn't seen that one before. How ironic!

WABBITMAN

Technology is an essential part of the human civilization.
Music is not.

there is no "struggle".

(before you disagree, ask yourself: "am I just a useless uneducated artsy hobo fag with no life?")

I have looked myself over, and I can say unequivocally that I am not a useless uneducated artsy hobo fag with no life. I'm a useless educated artsy hobo heterosexual with no life.

And I do disagree with one thing. You postulate that technology is essential and music is not. I would propose that in ALL human civilazations, music predates technology, and therefore is more essential.

I meant "civilizations". Damn those sticky keys.

.. thanks, wabbitman. One down, 200 million to go. How'zabout we organize a million-VOTE march on Washington DC? Wouldn't have to leave our neighborhood, wouldn't have to spend a lot of time and money.. so easy, yet so many come up with lame excuses not to do it. Folks, time is critical.. back up your words with your educated vote.. here in Ohio we have until Oct. 6 to register.. do it NOW!

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

So the dark ages predate the nuclear reactor. I would not call the dark ages essential.


not only does music predate technology, it is also present in most lower species today. Even bugs make a lot of useless noise, which may sometimes attract females, but still does not make them human.

What sets the human apart from animals is technology. Music is not a part of civilization; it is merely a useless byproduct.

I am waiting for the following legal arguments to come up:
1. Its not illegal to play the CD's I bought when my friends come over (they can listen to the music too);
2. Its not illegal for me to lend my CD's to my friends, nor for them to listen to these CD's;
3. Its not illegal for me to play my CD's over a telephone line, so that my friend can hear the new CD I just bought;
4. It is not illegal for me to listen to music broadcast over the radio
5. The only difference between the above and file sharing is that file sharing is easier, faster and allows both me and my friends to listen to my music when we want to. Because of the power of digital recording, the actual sound quality of the music received when shared over the internet (as opposed to over a telephone line) is of much higher quality.
I think the music industry, if put to the test of a trial (against an attorney who was able to think outside of the box and who understood how file sharing actually works), would stand a good chance of losing.

Useless noise?

Well I'm sure all the musicians on this site will take that for the compliment you ment it to be.

Serious though, to put technology above music is to say the human beings are no better than computers. What about Beethoven and Mozart? Perrenial geniuses who's gifts span time, gender, race, religion and political differences?

Music is, after all, a highly complex form of mathmatical encryption. It's so powerful that in modulates human emotion on soundwaves.

I've yet to see any form of technology, real or even *imagined* that came close to that.

There's a *reason* for the Greek myth about Orpheus and Euridice you know.

edit:

*it* modulates human emotion

so many long words and technical terms; I hope you understand what they all mean. Because I do, and they do not make sense in this context.

also, you have not asked yourself the above question.

Why would anyone ever want to have his/her emotions modulated?
If I ever wanted my emotions "modulated" I would have someone like kristin kreuk tickle my balls while typing asm code.

WP to spica