http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:24:51 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/09/142451.php Kyle G.Well, not really, but I hate them both...Today's topic du jour seems to be the RIAA's new tactic of suing people that download music from the internet. Of the 261 that are in the current crop of suits, everyone involved had apparently uploaded more than 1000 songs to the internet. Thus, it seems, people that strictly download songs are safe from the RIAA's (misguided) wrath as their plan is to attack those who are responsible for making those songs available online. Among those under duress from the RIAA are a 12 year old NYC student whose mother said paid $29.99 for Kazzaa and a 71 year old grandfather whose computer was taken over by his grandkids and used for this "illegal" activity. Is the internet free or not?So ... a few questions:1) Who exactly is getting sued here? The person that holds/pays for the ISP account being used or the person doing the act of downloading? Are both at fault?2) What if a guest uses your computer to upload / download music without your knowledge? Who is at fault?3) How do the record companies initiating the lawsuit know that the user that downloaded these songs didn't erase them after listening to them a few times?4) Do the 1,000 songs in question include live tracks or remixes that are not available to consumers commercially?5) Is there really that much difference between downloading songs from the internet, burning a CD for a friend, or recording songs off the radio or webcast?6) Aren't the bootleggers hawking $5 burned copies of the latest titles down on Canal Street more of a threat to the RIAA and the artists they protect? Why are they allowed to sell these CD's on the street with the police department's full knowledge? Wouldn't it be better PR for the RIAA to go after these real criminals?The RIAA's problem (along with the labels) has continually been that they think they can snuff out filesharing with bullying and scare tactics rather than embracing it and working together to come up with a model that can be universally compatible and yet profitable for labels (and hopefully artists as well). More than one record label has spent millions on Napster but yet they don't have a new, legal, fee driven version available to the public yet. More importantly, why has it taken this long for the labels to put an alternative on the market? Apple's iTunes Music Store sold its 10 millionth download this week. It's a proven winner considering the minute market it is serving. Out of all Apple users (which currently make up 2.7% of the computer market), only those with OSX are able to use the iTunes Music Store, which I'm guessing cuts that number in half.If I am the record labels, I get to working on a PC version and get it on the market as soon as possible.But again, this battle isn't going away any time soon. Why has it taken this long for labels to lower their prices? That should have been their first reaction, not raising prices even more. $18 is too much for a CD when DVD's and video games are just a few dollars more. Why are they supporting Clear Channel, whose illegal monopoly and unfair business practices directly lead to domination of the countries radio and concert venues? When the last time you saw a video on MTV? They are too busy showing the Osbournes and the Real World reruns. Does it ever occur to anyone that maybe people want to hear new and different things on the radio and people are using filesharing for this purpose? Kazzaa, Grokster and their ilk ARE THE NEW RADIO. Except you don't have the labels, their promotional money or radio's lame PD's and MD's making the music choices. What you want to hear is entirely up to you. Sci/Tech8243@blogcritics.org Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:24:51 EDT