Blogcritics: Comments on H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:08:00 EDT

We can only hold the rules to the people who know them... and hopefully we can lead by example. When someone comes in from nowhere throwing names and/or epithets, BlogCritics don't have to turn the other cheek. (Thankfully!)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:33:20 EDT

yes, we don't have to be nice to anyone who doesn't belong to our tribe

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:57:24 EDT

Temple, read the rules again. They are intended to proscribe civil intercourse between Blogcritics, not eliminate criticism of people "out there" in the wide world of life. If Eric were to suggest that you do something like that, that would be a problem, but Hugh is fair game.

Comment by Temple A. Stark

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:18:47 EDT

>>>>First of all: blow it out your fatuous ass, Hugh. Eric, this doesn't seem to go along with your new rules of Blogcritic etiquette, which were an admirable attempt and I wholeheartedly approve. But if you're breaking them, then what was the point of that six-point plan? I believe this site would be better served if you either disregard politics (but no angry arguments generate traffic and Blogad revenue) or have a separate category for them outside of "Etc."

Comment by bhw

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:53:03 EDT

Have you ever taken home a pen or pad of sticky notes from the office? Hmmmmmmm?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:50:21 EDT

I know, but the point deserved to be addressed - the meta-criticism implications are staggering.

Comment by bhw

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:45:26 EDT

I'ze just teasing. 8-)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:43:49 EDT

Technically, yes (if we are referring to me, I have never downloaded a copyrighted song without permission, although my wife and son have downloaded a total of about ten songs at my request). But I was specifically criticizing his hypocrisy, not the lawlessness.

Comment by bhw

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:41:11 EDT

I have to say, though, that my favorite part of his letter is the last paragraph. It sounds at first like he's threatening to unleash crappy songs on the world if people keep stealing the ones he thinks are good. Like we don't already pay good money for crappy songs. Finally, you must realize that in real life you really do get what you pay for. If you won't pay for music, you will soon be receiving a product commensurate with your thriftiness.

Comment by bhw

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:30:52 EDT

Just to be a devil's advocate .... Would the term hypocrite apply to a guy who admits to downloading songs without permission while criticizing someone else's lawlessness [such as carrying a gun on a plane]? ;-)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:08:58 EDT

That would go beyond hypocrisy into another realm for which there is perhaps no name: "Roy Cohnism"? It is broadly hypocritical as I have now defined it about five times. No one has to agree.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:57:07 EDT

His argument isn't on top of anything, it's just his argument, so I guess I'll just never see your interpretation of that as H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. I see it the same way Craig does: "being hypocritical would be criticizing downloaders and running an illegal album reproduction operation out of his home."

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:02:31 EDT

The hypocrisy is not based upon his topic of file sharing, but upon his assumption of moral superiority and lecturing 60 million people to obey the law and do what's right while he tries to carry a loaded gun onto an airplane. ON TOP OF THAT, his argument specifically against file sharing as an activity that deprives him of income is specious, etc, for the reasons cited above.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:45:38 EDT

Your latest comment seems to paint a different picture than the opener in your orignal post: "This is hysterical: a drug-addled loon who gets arrested for trying to tote a loaded gun onto an airplane has the unmitigated gall to give the beatdown to file sharers." And I still don't see any "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y" from Prestwood.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:41:23 EDT

There are a couple things that I think the RIAA is mistaken about. Specifically, even if Downloading negatively affects their sales, they are still missing the boat on the biggest causes of sales decreases. Here is a list of the reasons (in my mind) that record sales are down other than the possibility of downloading. 1. Radio Consolidation 2. The Decline of MTV 3. Video Games 4. Affordable DVD's On top of that, the recording industry is always so slow on the trends. The public has been backlashing at the popstars for a couple years now, with the exception of J Timberlake. So all the majors are now scrambling to get rock back out there, but SURPRISE, nobody wants Korn or Shit Bizkit. "Oh my God! What do they want?" They have no idea, so they end up overpaying to buy the underground artists out of their contracts on smaller labels, some of which they were loosely partnered with in the first place, so in essence they can pay for an album twice like they did with Wilco a couple years ago. There are much bigger problems than downloading, as you can plainly see.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:21:14 EDT

A story on the report from the Washington Post is here. The report itself is here. This is not the first report to suggest file sharing either doesn't do measureable harm or may even increase record sales. Every report funded by the industry says it does harm sales, most reports not affiliated with the industry say no. The point is that it is a very much open question, which is completely ignored by the songwriter, who speaks from the position of absolute certainty that file sharing directly and negatively affects his income. This renders his plea "specious" at best and "total crap" at worst.

Comment by Chris

Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:02:54 EDT

HP -- Fair enough.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:06:43 EDT

Chris, I haven't seen the study, but from what I've read about it, it is questionable in a number of respects. First, because a few decades of using research in business, my first rule of using research is: "Be skeptical." I'm certain it has kept me out of trouble on more than one occasion. I start by looking at the methodology. In this case, I'm not sure what theirs was but from what I've read, the study was based on a relatively small sample of downloads during a German school holiday. It's not clear to me whether they sampled only Germans or not, but there is a question about the sample size, as well as where and when the samples were taken. Apparently, there's also a disagreement on the number of those who download music and do not buy it as estimated in this study and the estimates in previous studies. This sounds like it might be important to the results, so: another question. And the word "estimates" raises another flag. Then, according to press reports, they used "complex mathematical formulas" to determine whether there was or was not a correlation between downloads and sales. A consultant (not part of the study) said he was "still trying to understand the complex document" (the study) before making any comments on its claims. If it took that much math to come up with the conclusion, that's another question. Also, one of researchers, Professor Oberholzer-Gee, said that "previous research assumed that every download could be thought of as a lost sale." That assumption is so wrong that I have trouble believing that all other research was based on it. This brings Oberholzer into question, and I wonder if he didn't start the study with preconceptions or an agenda that influenced his results. Personally, I'd also be interested in the effect of the long-term social trend of more and more people thinking it's okay to just take intellectual property you have no rights to, and how cumulative this would be (and uncapturable in a short-term study). So, while the study is very questionable, I'm willing to back off the full "bias" to "may be biased" if the everyone else is willing to admit that this study is not the definitive word on the relationship between "file sharing" and lower music sales. It really doesn't prove there's no effect. It's just one tree in the forest, and we don't know whether it has root rot or not.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 21:47:11 EDT

I'm with Craig on this one. The guy can be a complete fool in one regard (trying to carry a gun onto a plane in these times), but not a fool in regard to filesharing. As somone who still snatches'em when I can via P2P, I happen not to agree with him on that issue. But, his stupidity at the airport does not mean he can't be right on another topic. Also, we have at least one BC who says he owns 12 guns and has implied he will engage in fisticuffs with anyone who displeases him. (Actually, a chubby, out-of-shape fellow I could probably smack around myself.) The blogosphere is rife with macho men and gun nuts. So, it seems ironic to criticize someone who actually does what many folks here would like to.

Comment by Chris

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:43:23 EDT

HP -- If the reference to the study was the one most recently profiled on NPR, you might want to retract the biased and questionable part. 1. It is my recollection that the guys that did it were not being paid by a consumer group and/or pro file sharing group. It was conducted through the Harvard Business School and had something to do with buying behavior in general, and they used file sharing to see what numbers came up. 2. Even the record industry representative admitted, during this NPR report, that the data was interesting, subject to further review by the RIAA. 3. The gist of it was this: they tracked the most popular songs for download and then compared them for sales of the CD's those songs were on using Soundscan numbers -- and they found that generally there was no drop in sales for those CD's, or nothing close to what the RIAA claims in terms of the effects of file sharing on sales of CD's.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:02:51 EDT

The "blather" is in characterizing it as "specious" and "total crap." One biased, questionable survey may raise a question but is not definitive proof that he is not being deprived of income, particularly when there is other evidence for the opposite conclusion.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:39:48 EDT

I'm not sure how it is "blather" that the very core of is argument - that file sharing deprives him of income - is very much in dispute. He conveniently ignores that.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:33:28 EDT

Umm, make that "arguing against the theft of his property.."

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:00:07 EDT

"AND his actual argument against file sharing from the perspective of a songwriter is self-serving and specious at best and total crap at worst." Of course it's self-serving - he's defending the theft of his intellectual property. The rest of the characterization is irrelevant blather.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:06:25 EDT

Yes, thanks BB, that was much more concise and precise than any of my statements!