RIAA v Howell cleanup

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Craig White wrote:

> Washington Post retracted (this will make Chris happy)
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403607_2.html

Very happy!
>
>
> Wired refutes retraction...
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-still-thin.html

I can't be upset about this since I  never confused Wired with  
journalism but one thing does stand out and it is a mistake that a lot  
of more reputable sources than Wired seem to make.[1]

This common mistake is in trying  to somehow infer that the RIAA is  
making some positive statement on their position on ripping CDs simply  
because they deny that they hold the opposite position. Listen again  
to Cary Sherman on NPR. He is trying to disavow Pariser's "steals just  
one copy" remark without actually saying  ripping is OK. In fact those  
who want to hear that the RIAA condemned ripping and those  who want  
to say that they endorsed it are both wrong. I seems clear that the  
RIAA is shucking, jiving, twisting and in general trying to avoid  
taking any  position at all.

When an association will not state out a clear position on an issue  
the usual supposition is that they don't have internal consensus. I  
suspect that that is exactly what is going on with the RIAA.

If the RIAA could wave a magic wand and make ripping impossible, i  
suspect some of there members would oppose doing so. Business logic  
suggests ripping is good for the industry. To believe otherwise one  
has to accept that there is a significant market for dual purchases -  
people who will happily pay for the same song twice, once on CD and  
again as a download. This is  not creditable. People who purchase  
their music in the form of a download obviously don't care whether  
they get a CD. People who prefer a CD can always use a portable CD  
player when enjoying their music 'on the go' is important. A portable  
CD player is not as  convenient as an MP3 player but it is hardly  
inconvenient enough to motivate many instances of buying the same song  
twice. At the same time, by making CDs somewhat less useful, this  
hypothetical magic bar to ripping CDs would make them a little less  
desirable. The result would undoubtedly be some shift in the  
consumer's entertainment budget away from recorded music. It was quite  
likely that the total revenue received by the recording industry would  
decline if CDs could not be ripped.

I couldn't find any econometric studies to address this specific issue  
but that doesn't mean that the RIAA members haven't conducted their  
own studies. What I could find was some quite professional studies   
that show file sharers buy more music than  non-file sharers.  
Apparently file sharing  can act as a vehicle for publicizing a song  
just as radio does.

So if the ability to rip CDs is actually good for the recording  
industry, why would some RIAA members oppose it?

The answer seems to be that some companies are so fanatic about IP  
that they are totally irrational. The British equivalent to the RIAA  
actually sued a car repair chain for allowing its employees to play  
radios where their customers and  coworkers could hear them. They seem  
to have totally forgotten that no one will buy a  song they never  
heard. Then there is the case of the Sony Aibo, a little robot dog  
that they used to sell for $1,500 a pop. Sony sued and enthusiast for  
posting a program that made it dance to jazz. Sales plummeted and Sony  
lost a nice little business. They seem to have lost sight of the fact  
that writing and sharing programs for the Aibo was the whole point of  
having one.

Of course Sony was behind the root kit on a CD fiasco and it was a  
Sony rep who made the 'steals just one copy' remark.

Currently there are several stories about rumors that the RIAA is  
going to be scaled back or reorganized. Wouldn't that be special? It  
does add a little evidence to my speculation that there is internal  
dissension.

[1] Criag White is definitely on my list of sources that are more  
reputable than Wired.
--
In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.
-Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965)