Thought from Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA
If you have opinions about music downloading or follow the situation, you know its easy to hear the "pro" side of the story. Is is important to also hear comments made directly from those who believe DRM is necessary and is in fact providing a service in the grand scheme of things. I think you will find that most of the time the arguments are reasonable, from their perspective, and do have merit.
However here is my weigh-in on the whole thing...
I have always felt the RIAA stands for, as its name implies, the "Recording Industry" and this does not necessarily mean they are out for the best interests of the artists. There are many ways in which the worst enemy of an artist is his own industry. My core issue is that artists must be able to utlilize other avenues of distribution and marketing than those that exist from the collusion of record labels, publishers, distributers and so forth. Naturally the RIAA would not have an interest in allowing alternative means to take hold.
Why would the "Recording Industry" ever want artists to bypass them? I don't think they would say this is their concern, because as long as the RIAA has its systems in place, the alternatives really don't stand a chance at ever being effective and therefore they are not a threat. At best, sites such as garageband.com, myspace.com and mp3tunes.com are only a minor nuisance to the recording industry.
That is unless file sharing online breaks down that system. I think this is the real threat as there is no real proof that file sharing has actually hurt CD sales. I still believe that the selling of used cds is far worse to the RIAA. I can buy a disc on amazon for around $6.00 and have it shipped to my door. It is legal, I don't have to spend more than equal value in time and gas hunting around for the CD or dealing with any virus ridden mess online, and I can rip it and tag it exactly how I like.
File sharing is a waste of effort by comparison.
It really isn't that hard to compete with free, and the RIAA is perfectly aware of this. The issue is really not file sharing, it is about making sure the established channel of commerce remains intact.....and I can't balme them for defending these systems, that is what they are supposed to do.
Current DRM technologies are not the right way to defend IP, and future DRM technologies are not likely to be any better. The only ethical way is to simply offer a better product and let the market place agree. If this seams idealistic and not reasonable, how is letting large companies track your every move any more justifyable?
When I purchase a recording, I want to know specifically, and in large bold print, wether or not it is the expressed wishes of the artist, that spyware be installed to track how I listen. On the whole, artists would not agree to such a thing without being leveraged into it....or would they?
Malbela: RIAA President to stop downloading, save the empire
However here is my weigh-in on the whole thing...
I have always felt the RIAA stands for, as its name implies, the "Recording Industry" and this does not necessarily mean they are out for the best interests of the artists. There are many ways in which the worst enemy of an artist is his own industry. My core issue is that artists must be able to utlilize other avenues of distribution and marketing than those that exist from the collusion of record labels, publishers, distributers and so forth. Naturally the RIAA would not have an interest in allowing alternative means to take hold.
Why would the "Recording Industry" ever want artists to bypass them? I don't think they would say this is their concern, because as long as the RIAA has its systems in place, the alternatives really don't stand a chance at ever being effective and therefore they are not a threat. At best, sites such as garageband.com, myspace.com and mp3tunes.com are only a minor nuisance to the recording industry.
That is unless file sharing online breaks down that system. I think this is the real threat as there is no real proof that file sharing has actually hurt CD sales. I still believe that the selling of used cds is far worse to the RIAA. I can buy a disc on amazon for around $6.00 and have it shipped to my door. It is legal, I don't have to spend more than equal value in time and gas hunting around for the CD or dealing with any virus ridden mess online, and I can rip it and tag it exactly how I like.
File sharing is a waste of effort by comparison.
It really isn't that hard to compete with free, and the RIAA is perfectly aware of this. The issue is really not file sharing, it is about making sure the established channel of commerce remains intact.....and I can't balme them for defending these systems, that is what they are supposed to do.
Current DRM technologies are not the right way to defend IP, and future DRM technologies are not likely to be any better. The only ethical way is to simply offer a better product and let the market place agree. If this seams idealistic and not reasonable, how is letting large companies track your every move any more justifyable?
When I purchase a recording, I want to know specifically, and in large bold print, wether or not it is the expressed wishes of the artist, that spyware be installed to track how I listen. On the whole, artists would not agree to such a thing without being leveraged into it....or would they?
Malbela: RIAA President to stop downloading, save the empire
