Open Letter to the RIAA and to American Record Labels: How to "Fix" the Problem With Music Piracy Online

I recently read an article that proposed a sort of "tax" to prevent the illegal downloading of music online. Optimistic and knowledgeable as the author sounds while he's throwing out "facts" and "figures," the idea is just downright wrong. Here, I will try to devise my own system for coping with the problems the Internet poses to the music industry.

We all know that it's fairly simple to download copyrighted material from the Internet. Whether it's from a torrent tracker or from some other peer-to-peer application such as Limewire, it's usually a simple process to find your favorite song and grab it from someone else without paying for it.

There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with the problems this causes.

The wrong way would be to pick on college students at random and ream them with exorbitant fines for a relatively small amount of downloaded material. It's no secret that for quite some time now, the RIAA has been taking these "pirates" to court and zapping them with fees that are all but impossible to pay, then hoping that everybody just gets scared for a while and doesn't download anything illegally. Once the effect of the billion-dollar-fine scare wears off, the process cycles invariably at least once every year.

RIAA, this is wrong. Trying to bully the public into compliance with your obsolete business model doesn't change the fact that your business model is obsolete. It's a simple fact of life that most people will download music from the Internet illegally at some point. The only question is "when and how much".

To deal with piracy, the entire business model has to change to one that is not only up with the times, but ahead of the times entirely. As an industry, all major record labels should band together to create a new system for digital content distribution. We all know that Apple has had a choke-hold on the digital music distribution market for a very long time, but they've also been doing it incorrectly. Often, the price of a physical copy of an album on CD is the same as (and sometimes less than) the cost of the lesser-quality digital download available in the iTunes Store. Owning a hard copy of an album on CD eliminates many problems that come with buying music from iTunes (and many other digital retailers), such as the issue of a computer or hard drive failure leading to data loss, but primarily, the issue at hand is one of quality inferiority.

As some know, the audio quality of a song or album downloaded from the iTunes Store is vastly inferior to the quality of a lossless audio recording purchased on a Compact Disc or a Gramophone vinyl record. To be ahead of the game, not only should major record labels position themselves to compete with retailers like iTunes in terms of price, but they should offer a lossless download of an album, an exact copy of the original disc, for the price of the CD, less the cost of the physical production and distribution of the disc(s). Audiophiles would go nuts.

Take, for example, the Dave Matthews Band. In their webstore, you can purchase certain releases from them in a variety of formats. These formats range in price in accordance with the audio quality: low quality mp3 files are cheaper than lossless FLAC files. A business model like this in which record labels do business directly with the public would not only be a good means of ensuring the delivery of high quality audio content to the person who is paying hard-earned money for an audio recording, but by setting up a webstore on a per label basis, it would draw attention away from third-party retailers (Amazon, iTunes, Walmart) and towards the label itself.

The next step in keeping consumers away from peer-to-peer networks and getting them back into the habit of purchasing music? Low, low prices. Could you imagine a world where a consumer could buy an album for a flat fee as low as $5.00 (depending of course on the format)? I certainly could. Imagine a standardized content delivery system (sort of like iTunes) that is sponsored and run directly by representatives from each label that wants to partake in said system. Without dealing with any middle men, the labels could do business directly with their customers and offer competitive, digital-only pricing. For instance:

For the first year after its release, an album would be available in 192kbps CBR MP3 (high quality) format for $5.00, V0 VBR/320kbps CBR MP3 (higher quality) format for $5.50, and a FLAC+CUE (highest quality) download for $6.00.
After the first year, an album would be available in 192kbps CBR MP3 (high quality) format for $4.00, V0 VBR/320kbps CBR MP3 (higher quality) format for $4.50, and a FLAC+CUE (highest quality) download for $5.00.

Without the cost of manufacturing and distributing a physical disc, audiophiles could receive an exact copy of the original album for five or six measly bucks (of pure profit) and most other music lovers could get a lesser-quality version for four to five bucks (again, pure profit to the label). From there, the money could be distributed amongst the label as necessary.

Of course, this would not completely eliminate the need for CDs and Vinyl, so conventional retailers would still be able to serve up hard copies of the music at their regular, on-disc prices.

To eliminate the naysayers who still subscribe to the "try before you buy" mentality, allow customers to upgrade their account with the service for $1.00/month which would allow them to stream any album they want to up to three times before committing to buy it (for $5 bucks!). Without introducing ridiculous DRM-based restrictions, you give the consumer the ability to listen to an entire album enough to decide whether or not it's worth purchasing, and then you give them the freedom to purchase the album directly from the label in a variety of decent- to high-quality formats for a very low price.

While the prices look very low and unsustainable on paper, a deal like this would likely entice many would-be pirates to simply use this service to preview the music they want to preview, promoting artist discovery, and then buy it once they decide they like it (or pass on it if they decide they don't), since multiple studies have now shown that regular pirates are very likely to purchase the music they download if they like it.

I'm sure there would be some initial kinks that would need to be worked out, and perhaps my idea of a pricing scheme is simply ludicrous, but as a pirate myself, I know that a system like this would definitely draw my attention, and I'd probably be the most loyal customer.

America (or "The State Of The 'Union'")

Watch this video closely. You'll hear an American woman yelling "Heil Hitler" at a Jewish man.

But this video isn't from some time in the '30s or '40s. No, this happened just weeks ago.

Apparently, this woman disagreed with the Jewish man. So, instead of speaking to him in a civil manner, she did what most Americans would seem to do these days: she smites him, provoking him with childish gestures instead of having a sense of civility.

The remarks this woman makes and the attitude she has should show everyone exactly why every other country in the world seems to hate America: we breed insensitive, apathetic, pseudo-intellectuals who believe they are experts on everybody’s business but their own. They have no idea how to act civilly, and they haven't the slightest clue about what it means to show "empathy." For the most part, they feel that the ability to have an opinion grants them some sort of godlike status which immediately renders the thoughts, wishes, and ideas of others completely inane and meaningless.

Of course, this does not apply to every American...only a vast majority.

Hey Americans, would it honestly be too difficult to not immediately begin yelling obscenities and acting like a God-forsaken two-year-old at the first hint that someone disagrees with you?

"I Know My Rights," 1st Amendment: Freedom to be a Jerk

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first in this twelve part series, the First Amendment is probably one of the most abused Amendments to the US Constitution ever. Period.

The right to freedom of speech has a place. For instance, there are certain things that it should protect, such as the freedom to speak freely (hence the "freedom of speech" part).

It should NOT, however, be used as reasoning to treat other people like crap. You have not been protected against laws "abridging the right to be a douchebag." Using the right to freedom of speech does not mean that you have a God given right to trash talk every person who has ever done something you don't agree with or every person you just don't like. Sometime around 1788, the framers of the Constitution were into this rad new discovery called "respect." It was this crazy-stupid-awesome idea that other people have feelings and stuff, too, so you shouldn't just spend all of your time belittling them and pushing the boundaries of the law to make them miserable, even if you have that freedom.

Anyways, back to other things the First Amendment is not for:

• It is not there to protect you from legal action when you do something illegal using the Internet (09F9 was a one time thing, even if it was lulzy).
• It is not for protecting your hate speech against other people or people groups. Even though you have the ability to hate other people groups, spewing racist, sacrilegious, and generally hateful nonsense is not what the freedom of speech is for. On that note:
• It is not there to use as an excuse for being a bad person. You can always yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!" whenever you think what you are saying is offensive or contains questionable content, but if your speech is composed of things like that, you're just a bad person, and no Amendment to any Constitution will ever change that.
  

Ubuntu, OpenSolaris, Windows Home Server

Two weeks ago, I requested a free copy of Ubuntu 9.04 on disc (and I have done this at least once during the past 6 release cycles). I received it yesterday without paying anything at all.

Monday, I requested a free copy of OpenSolaris 2009.06 on disc (my second request for a disc from Sun for free). I received it today in the mail, also without paying anything at all.

Today, I inquired on the Microsoft website about getting an evaluation copy of Windows Home Server. I do not have to pay for the disc(s?), but the shipping is not free. $5.95 to be exact.

How is it that the largest software company in the world, who makes billions every year from their copy-protected and closed-source operating system, cannot provide free shipping for a trial version of their software on disc, while you can receive a copy of a free, open source, software libre operating system, without even paying for shipping?

"Hard Times For Hard Copy"

I would like to take a minute to give some attention to an organization known as Free Press.

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications.

...and there you have it.

A few years ago, I joined the Free Press mailing list to be notified of congressional net neutrality happenings. Before I go any farther, I'd like to say that Free Press has never spammed me, and many of their emails have been quite informative.

I receive emails from Free Press on a weekly basis, notifying me of some new threat to net neutrality. Whether it's ComCast trying to impose bandwidth caps and restrict access to certain websites, or - the latest - the CEO of Sony Pictures saying that "nothing good [has] come from the Internet. Period.", there's almost never a dull moment in my inbox anymore.

It's appalling that there are still so many people who can convince those in power that the Internet is a bad thing. Furthermore, it's even more appalling that those in power can still be convinced that the Internet is a bad thing.

I recommend that those of you who like your Internet access start taking notice to the things that people are actually saying about it.

We're nearing the demise of printed media, and I believe that physical distribution altogether will be done for soon after. Perhaps the biggest issue here is the fact that in the past few decades, people who rely on these distribution methods for profit have gained far too much power, and they're not going to let hard copy go down without a fight. We're nearing a time when those who are making money from printed media and physical media distribution are going to begin the fight to the death to make sure that the Internet doesn't force them to change the way they do business. If that happens, the Internet as we know it may be changed forever.

In fact, the fight has already begun.

For instance, some newspaper companies that operate a website will not allow you to access their content online unless you pay for a subscription to the physical paper as well. However, from their position, it almost makes less sense to do business this way. For a newspaper company looking to cut costs, convincing readers to switch to a digital distribution method seems like the way to go. Nobody has to pay the delivery guy to email a copy of a newspaper to someone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should all abandon ship and give a toast to hard copy going down with it - some things need hard copy - but realistically, restricting Internet access is not the way to save hard copy.

Vista/7 vs. The Linux Gods

It's a common misconception that Linux, this mythical, free alternative to "Winblows" (or whatever the term disgruntled [because it's the cool thing to do] bloggers are using these days is), is the be-all-end-all solution to the corporate dictatorship that Microsoft is in control of.

As a Linux user myself, let me be the first to say that "just switching to Linux" is far easier said than done if you are a long time user of Windows like myself. The things that I expect to happen on my PC in Windows do not always carry over to the Linux world. It's an entirely different command line to learn, the interface is far from perfect, and for the most part, any [of the many] issues I have encountered have been greeted with a "look it up yourself, Linux-fad-following n00b". So while it's a fun experience because of the ability to learn how to use something as useful as Linux, it's a task in itself sometimes to comprehend all the things that go on in the background that we spoiled Windows users never have to offer input on. All of said background happenings are far more appreciated the first time you're faced with configuring everything from the ground up while being greeted with the option to enable and disable things you didn't even know existed, especially when you have no clue what needs to be enabled and what doesn't.

All this talk of businesses "moving/switching to Linux" lately has got everyone confused. There is no statistical evidence [that has been presented to me since all this recent Linux talk has started flooding the airwaves] to support what people are saying: that massive amounts of nameless businesses are making the switch to Linux.

Windows hasn't been the star player in the datacenters and server rooms of our world for many years now. Linux has been in use in many major businesses, at least those that have a clue what they're doing, for quite some time now. I'd venture to say that it's not that more businesses are implementing Linux, it's that more people are finally paying attention to the fact that it exists, and that it's already implemented en masse in the places they don't think of.
To be quite honest, you won't see many businesses of any size or quality moving to Linux end-user workstations any time soon. The learning curve is still too steep, believe it or not, and they would soon be begging to get back all that "Volume License User" support they were getting. If you don't believe me, they will, especially the first time something goes wrong that affects every user in the company while they're still training the IT guy on how to grep man pages for help with updating Firefox.

Deny it all you want, Windows has a place. For an end-user workstation or home use operating system, Windows is miles ahead of the competitor(s). It's intuitive, easy to use and implement, and most importantly, stuff just works.

The same thing goes for Vista. I don't really understand all the "issues" people claim to be having with Vista. I was an early adopter of Vista, and since Day 1, I have never had a single BSOD or a single system failure, and I can count on one hand the number of problems I've ever had with getting a peripheral or application to run on Vista. I still, to this day, use UAC, I have no anti-malware software installed other than the programs that came with Vista, I use a wide variety of peripherals (iPod, digital cameras, external optical and hard disk drives, etc.), I play quite a few games, I sandbox and virtualize all the time, and I use my computer on a home network with all sorts of other operating systems, as well as my college's network, and the networks of many of my friends and relatives, and I never have any problems. This is the newest computer in my home network, and it, like all the other 5 PCs I own, runs Vista without error, and as smooth as silk.

Windows 7, I can safely say (even in its early releases), runs even better, and has phenomenal performance increases compared to an already excellent Vista experience I'm having. On the exact same computers, I have noticed some sort of performance increase in every game or application I have tried out. I am growing almost overly fond of the new window/taskbar management system, and I haven't really found anything at all yet that I dislike about 7 that is different from its Vista counterpart. The whole system runs blazing fast on every computer I've tried it on. Also, like Vista, I've been able to pop the same hard drive into about 4 or 5 different computers and have almost no problems getting everything to work without ever having to interact in any way other than a reboot after drivers have been installed.

In my opinion, People really need to give Windows 7 another look here. ESPECIALLY those XP purists that are refusing to move to Vista while forgetting what a piece of crap XP was when it was first introduced, and all the issues it still has to this day.

Misinterpretations: The Facebook Virus

It has come to my attention that the term "virus" is subject to massive misconception. A "virus" as most people know it is just something that does something bad to one's computer. However, for the attack in question to truly be appropriately titled a "virus", it must involve a program that downloads and executes on an end user's computer without the consent of the end user.

The problem here is that people are now commonly confusing a virus with a phishing scam. "Phishing", as most people understand it, involves "unsolicited email messages that are going to steal your credit card information and do bad things with your PayPal account(!)". While that is one type, phishing can also include, but is not limited to any scheme that is used to gain access to a user's personal information/credentials. The difference here is that somewhere along the line when a user is being phished, some sort of action is required on the part of the end user. The subsequent theft of identity, infection, or other end result is caused because the user gave a third party access to their information or their computer, whether they knew it or not. The difference is that phishing involves user interaction. Most of us here in the PC world also know phishing as a type of social engineering.

Let me make a bold statement here (and on top of making it bold, I'll put it in red, too):
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET AN END USER VIRUS SIMPLY BY ACCESSING A SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF SOME SORT OF PHISHING/SOCIAL ENGINEERING SCAM.

And while I'm at it, let me make another bold statement here:
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

The problem with these "viruses" that are acquired on social networking websites is that the social networking site is in no way involved with the phishing process that must be used to gain the user's consent to download or install some sort of malicious software on his/her computer. Furthermore, even if there is no user consent given, the third party that is the origin of the phishing scam has no relation to the social networking website in question other than the fact that they copied the visual layout of the website's login page, or otherwise created a webpage that looks exactly like or similar to the interface that is native to said social networking website.

Recently, there have been more than a few reports of a new Facebook "virus" called Koobface (note the misuse of the term "virus" here). This attack works by spamming the user's Facebook inbox with messages that lead them to believe that they are being complimented on their appearance in a friend's video (whether or not they actually even appeared in any video), or otherwise are conversing with a legitimate Facebook user. The user then clicks on a link (input) which leads them to a webpage where they can "view the video", but there's a problem(!), and the user needs to download and install "the latest update to Adboe Flash Player" (input). We all know how the story goes from there: the user installs the "update" and gets infected.

While it's tempting to call these viruses, the thing that differentiates them is the fact that the user was involved in the process of receiving the infection.