That's What I'm On About

AP:

Wayne Rosso, who built a reputation criticizing the recording industry as head of Grokster Ltd., is also pursuing a decidedly more cordial relationship with music labels as he prepares to launch a copyright-friendly file-sharing service.

"It's pretty clear who won," Rosso said. "We always knew that this free trading of all this copyright material couldn't go on. It just wouldn't work."

Such capitulation was once unheard of among the file-sharing operators who lobbied against Hollywood and the recording industry. They billed themselves as defenders of technological innovation who shouldn't be held liable because some people used their software for piracy.

But the high court's ruling in June opened file-sharing operators to potential liability — something the entertainment industry underscored when it sent notices to seven file-sharing software operators in September warning them to shut down or prepare for court.
...
Still, the amount of file-sharing has continued to increase since the days of Napster, and that's not likely to change much, said Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne LLC, which tracks activity on file-sharing networks.
...
Mitch Bainwol, head of the music industry trade group Recording Industry Association of America, concedes some file-sharers will find other means of obtaining pirated music online.

"There will always be new technological challenges," Bainwol said.

But he noted a sea change since Napster fell: Propelled by the success of Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store, young music fans now have more legal options for obtaining music in digital form than they did back in 2001.

Ultimately, the entertainment companies are banking that the new-look file-swapping services that emerge from the ashes of Napster's heirs will draw computer users away from illegal services.

I'll start with the RIAA guy: no shit, Sherlock.  Give people legal alternatives and they will flock to them.  Most folks don't want to break the law that protects corporate revenue streams, but if corporations don't embrace changing technology, create new business models and treat their customers as valuable allies, then many people are going to join me in saying, "Fuck RIAA!"  And damn it, instead of viewing this all as "new technological challenges" to preventing piracy, how about thinking of "new technological opportunities"?

Now, about Grokster.  I'm all for companies like this "capitulating" and working with the industry.  Their excuses were bullshit and their models were as untenable as the studios'--even the Mafia would be hard-pressed to run such an illegitimate business.  They did serve one very important function: they smacked the recording industry upside the head and got it to pay attention.  That enabled Steve Jobs to come in and show that there were other approaches, and now we're seeing alternatives to iTunes and the whole new world of electronic distribution of music is flourishing.

What's interesting to me is that in all these discussions about legal troubles one of my favorite apps, BitTorrent, generally seems to be missing:

[Bram Cohen created] BitTorrent, a deceptively simple program that has grown into the hottest way to download anything bigger than a music file--from the legal (like militaryvideos.net's amateur videos of the war in Iraq) to the infringing. It makes pirating a copy of the latest movie out of Hollywood a snap. All it takes is a free download of the BitTorrent software--something 45 million people have done--and anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. TorrentSpy, a site unrelated to Cohen that helps people find content available for download, averages more than 600 new BitTorrent files a day. A sampling: Microsoft Office 2003, Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window, episode two of CBS's Ghost Whisperer (in high definition, for serious Jennifer Love Hewittians), plus a file containing over 400 Amazing Spider-Man scanned-in comics. Those huge files have made BitTorrent one of the biggest forces on the Internet, accounting for more than 20% of its traffic at any one time. That's double the volume generated by the most common Internet activities combined: clicking on web pages, sending and receiving mail and spam, even streaming videoclips.

With great power, of course, comes great enemies, so you can probably guess how it ought to play out. When music-sharing networks Napster and Kazaa rose up earlier this decade, the record labels sued them into submission. Surely BitTorrent will be next--especially now that Hollywood is beginning to feel the pinch as well. Today there are roughly 1.7 million copies of Hollywood movies--typically the most popular ones--being downloaded at any one time using BitTorrent, a 12% jump from last year, according to online media measurement firm BigChampagne. Analyst Informa Telecoms & Media estimates that in 2004, the downloads cost Hollywood roughly $860 million, or 4% of box office receipts. In the same period the number of TV shows downloaded grew by 150%--about 70% of them snagged using BitTorrent. "In the David and Goliath scenario, there really is a David," says Big Champagne CEO Eric Garland. "There's a kid at a keyboard who writes this incredibly disruptive technology."

Yet this time the plot has a twist: the entertainment industry seems to have found a disrupter it might be able to live with. In mid-September the recording industry issued cease-and-desist letters to seven popular downloading-technology companies, including BearShare, LimeWire, and eDonkey (prompting eDonkey's CEO to announce to a Senate subcommittee that he was "throwing in the towel"). BitTorrent was noticeably absent from the assault. It was also MIA last winter when the movie industry went after sites hosting copyright-busting BitTorrent content. Instead of fighting the entertainment establishment, Cohen is courting it. Last July, he met Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, for drinks at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills and left him wowed. "He's obviously a very brilliant guy," says Glickman, who notes that Hollywood understands that it's time to embrace these new technologies. "The opportunities are going to be there to get our content to millions more people."

Yes, the opportunities are going to be there.  They already are there and it's refreshing to see an industry learn from another's mistakes and adopt these new channels.  In fact, on the same page that I saw the article about the so-called "file-sharing barons", I read this:

Starz Entertainment Group is launching a movie download service that allows consumers to view full-length studio films, concerts and TV shows on portable devices powered by Microsoft Corp. software.
...
The service, dubbed "Vongo," is available for a monthly subscription of $9.99 and will eventually include more than 1,000 movies, short films and other programs. The films will be available at the same time they are offered on the Starz premium movie cable channel, about five to six months after they are released on DVD.

Users will be able to download as many films as they want each month to up to three devices, including Windows-based computers and portable devices running Microsoft's Portable Media Center software.

A smaller number of films will be available several months sooner for a pay-per-view fee of $3.99. Subscribers will also be able to watch a live, streaming video feed of the Starz TV channel.

"It's kind of iTunes for movies," said technology analyst Rob Enderle, referring to the music download service offered by Apple Computer Inc.

Enderle and other analysts also said the service will reinvigorate the market for portable devices, such as the ones already offered by Creative Technology Ltd. and iRiver. The devices have not taken off, in large part because of a lack of compelling content, most notably big studio movies.

It ain't using BitTorrent, but that's not the point.  I don't care about a specific piece of software.  It's the application--the USE--of the technology that I'm interested in.  I hope other movie channels and other companies in the industry play around with different approaches, which will only lead to more innovation.  More pointedly, this will reduce the amount of illegal activity, making it easier to nail the real bad guys while leaving decent folks out of the mess.  Bottom line is that the entertainment companies can spend less time worrying about piracy and put more energy into their core competencies, generate real value and building good relationships with their customers.

As somebody trying to make some scratch doing the photography thing, I respect the idea of intellectual property.  While I'm one to let people pretty much steal my low-res files, I always appreciate it when somebody asks permission all the same, especially if they'll give me a credit which just might generate more interest in what I do.  Without new customers, I wouldn't have any business to speak of, and putting a lesser-quality picture to put on their desktop or to use on a website isn't really going to take away money from me and engenders goodwill and potentially creates a wider audience.  I want more people to see my photos.

If I took the recording industry's tack, I would not only stop people from being able to right-click on my online pictures to save them, I'd also have a slew of restrictions on my prints as well: dictating how they should be framed, limiting the rooms in your house in which they may be hanged, how many people are allowed to view the pictures at one time, etc.  That's silly, of course, and all the Digitial Rights Management crap being used on CDs these days is just as silly.

So while I applaud the movie folks for embracing digital distribution mechanisms, and I even give a grudging nod to the recording industry for finally seeing the light and establishing legitimate download services, there's one more step I want them to take as we see podcasting (audio and video) start to really grow: let people use the content they paid good money for in whatever fashion they want.  I'm not suggesting that royalties be done away with if a radio or TV station is using material in a commercial fashion.  But come on, punks like me are just sharing stuff with friends like we used to with mix tapes. 

Yes, our audience is a bit wider than the girls we were trying to impress back then.  And that's just the point: we're exposing more people to your stuff than ever before.  No, that argument doesn't remove the fact that I am violating copyright--I get that.  Just from a philosophical and business perspective, I think these entertainment fascists need to reconsider their position in the marketplace and laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Copyright protections are supposed to enable innovation--that includes technological innovation, as well as derivative works.  Laws like the DMCA and lawsuits against customers stifle all that.  Hmm, sounds like I might have some material for a podcast...

ntodd