There are no reasons to pirate music

According to Paul Boutin at Wired.com, The Age of Music Piracy is Officially Over. He may be right. Paul says that there is no reason to steal music anymore, unless you're just cheap.

Now that most music can be downloaded as high as 256Kbps quality, songs are 99 cents or lower, and there are a variety of legal sources, he makes a good argument. You can even legally download the Beatles now. Other than sheer unwillingness to pay for music, there isn't really a good reason to download pirated songs. The quality usually isn't as good - there's no guarantee you'll even get the whole song - and there's always that risk, however slight, that you'll get tagged as a downloader and sued.

If you absolutely have to have free music, there are alternatives out there, like Jamendo, a service full of free music that is available under various Creative Commons licenses. Most of the licenses are pretty liberal, allowing you to sample, remix and in general rework the tracks for your pleasure. A similar service is Magnatune, which provides music that is free for any type of personal use. For commercial use there is a one time fee and no royalties. That means that now matter how much profit your project makes, you only pat the one time fee.

On further thought, Paul Boutin is right. There is no reason to pirate music anymore.

Suing downloaders new "revenue stream"

First it was Warner Brothers seeking an anti piracy intern in the U.K. Now it's the US Copyright Group taking a swing at stopping movie piracy. They are not doing it at the request of the MPAA, they are doing it an a straightforward attempt to find new and interesting ways to make money.

According to an article in The Hollywood Reporter, they are using a new proprietary technology that allows realtime inspection of torrent downloads. Supposedly it's been very successful in Germany. US Copyright Group has filed tens of thousands of lawsuits, with a handful being settled already, and there could be another 30,000 filed in coming months.

This tactic didn't work for the RIAA, and hopefully it won't work here despite the new technology. Litigating shouldn't be an option to avoid having to adapt to changing market conditions.

Cost of music piracy: $2,250 per song.

Are you one of the people still sharing your music over peer to peer networks like Limewire? In the 'Threat Level' blog for Jan 22, David Kravits tell us about Jammi Thomas-Riset, who was fined 1.92 million for sharing 24 songs. That's $80,000 a song! Jammi's lawyer asked that the price be reduced. The judge agreed, and reduced it to the minimum allowed, $750 per song x 3. The judge called the original amount "shocking."

The RIAA is a fear-mongering bully, and they need to be forcd to disband and allow artists to do their thing. The premise that internet sharing reduces CD sales is hogwash, and 70's folk singer Janis Ian makes a good case for the opposite here, and Eric Flint of the Baen Free Library makes a similar case here and amplifies on it here. Ian's article is also published in "Prime Palaver" on the Baen Free Library website. Both people can demonstrate that offering things free (including having your music pirated) leads to more - not less - sales.

It's inevitable the entrenched businesses with "strategies that work" will react violently to any new model that makes their way of doing business obsolete. But it's getting old. The iTunes music store has demonstrated quite well that legal online sales are not only feasable, but can be highly lucrative. But they still want to alienate their users by suing them. I'll never understand the corporate mind.

Eternal Ignorance

There was an interesting thread on one of the lists I subscribe to a few days ago. I'm going to share some of it with you. I'll be using screenshots of the emails so you can see the actual conversations, and see how some people will not learn. I hope you find it interesting, or perhaps even amusing, as only the pigheadedness of people's desire to get something for nothing (or at least at a heavy discount) can be.

The original poster (OP) was looking for cheap software:

[caption id="attachment_640" align="alignnone" width="419" caption="Seeking deals in spam"][/caption]

Everything about this deal screams "SCAM". Others agreed.

[caption id="attachment_643" align="alignnone" width="466" caption="Pointing out his error"][/caption]

OP disagreed with everyone (there were many more, "Don't Do it!" posts.

[caption id="attachment_656" align="alignnone" width="432" caption="Does he really believe this?"][/caption]

Did anyone actually read the first graphic? Do you remember him saying his VISA card was compromised in December, and he has no idea why.

I finally tried to explain why he was wrong. It didn't do any good.

[caption id="attachment_661" align="alignnone" width="600" caption="I weigh in"][/caption]

The moderator killed the thread, but not before it was obvious that, no matter the risk, this guy was going to try to buy from spammers. Of course, part of the problem was his definition of spam. To him, any mention of a product in an electronic medium is spam. I know this because he used a thread about the Magic Jack internet phone service as an example of legitimate spam.

The rest of his problem was he didn't want to be educated. He asked for advice, then completely disregarded it. I'm sure one day he will be wondering how somebody found out enough about him to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. Or maybe only tens of thousands. Either way, he could have gone a long way toward avoiding it by just not using spam to shop with.

Oh, and that link to check websites is: http://www.siteadvisor.com/
Enter the URL of the site you want to check in the box on the right:

[caption id="attachment_664" align="alignnone" width="600" caption="One useful tool"][/caption]

Of course, if you are using current versions of most browsers, many have built in sitecheckers. But it's hard to overtest these things.

Hope this was helpful. Keep your eyes open and keep safe

Bono's hurting because of music pirates?

In a New York Times editorial U2 front man Bono gives his top ten things he thinks are important for the next decade. His second item is a plea to stop this horrible thing that has almost killed the music industry - file sharing. Not for the sake of artists like him, but for the little guys trying to get started. The ones who can't make a living because their music is being distributed free by pirates. He apparently does know how ridiculous he sounds, because he ends the section with, "Note to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles."

There are a few things he is ignoring, however. There is a thriving indy music industry based on internet distribution. Many young artists have started their careers using the internet and are quite happy as regional sensations. Other types of content providers have discovered that carefully managed free distribution increases sales instead of decreasing them. Baen books started an experiment in 1999 or 2000. Instead of trying to stop internet sharing, they embraced it. They put some of the older titles of authors who were willing to give away a book or two online as free downloads. They're still doing it today. I'll give you three guesses why.

If you are a fan of fantasy and science fiction, check out the Baen Free Library. And see how intelligence and forward thinking handle new "problems". And after picking up a book or two by an author you've never read before, if you like it, buy something else by the same author. After all, he was nice enough to give you an enjoyable free read, and he's got bills the same as you and I.

ACTA Mattah, You!

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a treaty-in-progress between the United States, the European Community, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada. Nothing has been ratified as yet, and because it is a "trade agreement" there has been almost no disclosure about what it contains. Leaked documents are quite frightening, however. There appears to be a "Three Strikes" rule on the table. The three strikes rule would require that any home accused of accessing or providing pirated works would lose internet access for a year. In entry on the Center for Democracy and Technology blog, "We Are Not Amused" we see that the Queen of England has voiced her approval of such a rule for the UK. According to Britains Department for Business Innovations and Skills (download PDF), apparently the cutting off of internet access would include any type of communication that accesses the web:

"although we continue to regard the uptake and use of Internet services as essential to a digital Britain, we are considering the case for adding suspension of accounts into the list of measures that could be imposed. This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used - this step would obviously be a very serious sanction as it would affect all members of a household equally, and might disrupt access to other communications, so it should be regarded as very much a last resort."

This is in reference to Britain's Digital Economy Bill. If you're interested, it's Chapter 10 - the amendment to Britains Communications Act of 2003. I'd have provided a direct link, but it wouldn't save in the blog. This type of law has been passed by other countries such as France, and is being looked at by the European Union, independent of ACTA. In some versions, including ACTA, the suspension occurs if you have been accused three times. Convictions are not required.

That is just one of the problems with ACTA. The only review is by the negotiators and lobbying groups - groups that have pushed such anti-consumer legislation as the DMCA. Recently a small number of others have been allowed to see the proposed ACTA document, but only after an approved application and signing a non-disclosure agreement. Why is secrecy for this document so important? Consider:

One of the proposed regulations makes ISP's responsible for the content provided by their customers - contrary to US legal precedent.

Will treat "technical protective measure" (TPM) infringements differently (presumably more severely) than "general infringements". TPM is what we commonly refer to as Digital Rights Management (DRM) in the US.

There will be no requirement for hardware manufacturers to ensure interoperability of TPM's. Imagine having to have a player for each major studio - one for Disney, one for Paramount, one for Dreamworks, etc.

Not part of the agreement, but part of the way trade agreements work - if ACTA is signed by the US Trade Representative (USTR) it is binding. The US will have to enforce it as law, without congress (our representatives) having any say in the matter. The RIAA, MPAA and their foreign counterparts have found a way to get around the laws of their respective countries.

This is something that we really need to jump on and speak to our representatives. We need to demand that they demand the ACTA negotiations be opened up to public scrutiny.

To contact your senator (if you don't already have the info):

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Your Representatives:

http://www.house.gov/
Enter your zip code in the box in the upper left and click on "go".