Comments on: Harvard Students Defend Privacy Against RIAA; Industry Pushing Campus Licenses?

By: Google Latitude - there is always someone watching | DwightDeGroff.com

Google Latitude - there is always someone watching | DwightDeGroff.com — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:51:15 +0000

[...] these are but a few of the ways in which we often fail to safeguard the rights to privacy that we defend and claim to cherish. A NY Times article says that researchers refer to this as the “privacy [...]

By: wlh

wlh — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:28:48 +0000

While the RIAA’s legal actions are sensational and therefore draw a lot of attention, they RIAA isn’t and can’t be the focal point of a solution to this problem. A solution must come from the technology industries and communications / networking communities. The RIAA did not invent or popularize vinyl, neither did they invent or popularize CDs, and they won’t invent or popularize digital formats either. They are tiny compared to the industry giants who create these technologies.

But other than “no DRM”, what coherent solution have the technology companies and communications companies put forward and gotten behind? “no DRM” and “no lawsuits” isn’t a solution that takes artists into account, and it’s not intended to be; it’s a way of kicking an obstacle to consumerism out of the road.

-wlh

By: Steve Kirn

Steve Kirn — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:31:05 +0000

A classic indicator of imminent failure is when a business turns inward and looks for ways to protect its existing strategy, rather than finding ways to innovate (even — or perhaps especially — if that means breaking previously successful paradigms). This error is often dressed up in fancy terms (e.g., “maintaining focus on our core business”), but the reality has more to do with turf protection and resistance to reinvention of the business model.

A classic example: the Baldwin Locomotive Company. They made outstanding railroad locomotives, culminating in their mission statement of the 1930’s, “Baldwin will be the world’s leading producer of high-quality, steam locomotives.” And they were excellent at this! But their major new competition (for example, G.E.)came from outside their industry and business paradigm, marked by the switch to diesel-electric powered locomotives. They were never able to fully make that transition, and went out of business in 1956.

RIAA is fighting a rear-guard action. They are turned inward, and missing the change in music access. Piracy is real, but protecting against it will not solve the problem.

Sorry for the antiquated example, but it still rings true to me.

By: wi_ngo

wi_ngo — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:55:46 +0000

@tMMt34 – Exactly. It seems sinister, and a lot like the Mafia. It has gone beyond protecting their assets and has become a bully tactic, complete with threats. I believe this is precisely what the Harvard folks are trying to point out.

By: Create Digital Music » Judge to Record Industry: Lay off Mom and Dad’s Computer, For Now

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:18 +0000

[...] the exciting conclusion to the face-off between record industry lawyers and a class full of Harvard Law students and their professor. Well â€“ sort of. This is legal drama [...]

By: deltasleep

deltasleep — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:36:36 +0000

It’s worth noting that the shift from physical to digital distribution happened simultaneously with a shift from a few artists selling millions of records to millions of artists selling a thousand records. The days of Madonna selling 10 million copies of a single album are closing.
How they handle that shift will be more important than how they handle digital sales, imo. If you’re not carrying a product that people want, it doesn’t matter how you distribute it.

By: tMMt34

tMMt34 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:23:23 +0000

Maybe I am missing something, but this sounds like “protection” money to me. Pay us to not come after you?

By: gbsr

gbsr — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:32:34 +0000

well. despite the fact that the record industry has always been slow and thickheaded (goshdarnit the vhs will RUIN us), theres another thing that comes to mind aswell:

if they were to let people download music freely, for a charge, they will let the customers decide what to listen to, not the other way around from what it is right now. bad news for them, wont see that many absolute music #whatever and the latest hot handpicked group of models posing as musicians.
customers (Atleast some of them heh) are smart, but right now finding good music is hard because the labels rule the market and what gets published and what doesnt. letting people decide for themselfes could make the money flow somewhere else instead straight to the corporate heads.

they raised hell when the vhs came, they raised hell then the cd came aswell. ofcourse theyre gonna raise hell now when you, the customer, have the ease of deciding yourselfes whats good music and whats not.

By: Peter Kirn

Peter Kirn — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:54:00 +0000

Damon:
Absolutely. But that very argument is what the Harvard legal team is using against the RIAA plaintiffs. And “the law” tends to subject to interpretation — hence the ability of Harvard Law to charge tuition. ;)

Of course, as I said, the Harvard team isn’t questioning the validity of copyright law, but the abuse of it in the court system. And I’m saying the RIAA continues to focus on litigation at the expense of business.

This is worth a separate post, but have a look at the RIAA website. There’s a parable about this in retail, which is if you become so obsessed with shoplifting that you forget to actually *run your store*, you lose money. If you say “yes, but shoplifting is wrong,” you weren’t paying attention to the original point. By the same token, you wouldn’t stop doing inventory control — you just would make sure it’s one of a number of things you do, most of which are likely to involve getting people to buy what you’re selling!

Peter

By: Damon

Damon — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:26:52 +0000

An unjust or abusive application of a valid law does not disqualify the validity of the law.

Blessings,
Damon