There is a need to protect the ability of creators of intellectual content, in order to have that content created for the benefit of society - and conceptually, digital technology can pose a threat to that protection.

Its ability to duplicate sound, image and words can pose a threat to nearly all content, short of live peformances, original paintings and such.

Ask Salon how much they'd publish if someone created a site where you could read the content without ads or subscription and their revenue plummeted to near-zero.

Does that mean there are no problems with the music industry? No, it means that those problems need to be handled in ways other than piracy; that it'd be better to have the music industry with problems than to not have the music because of piracy.

We all need to support the protection of copyright where it serves society's interests. Want to battle abuses? I'm with you.

In the history of civilization and copyright, there has never been the threat that digitial technology *could* pose. The loss to our culture if the numbers of books, music, movies, etc. - well, books anyway - are slashed is huge.

It would lead to a glut of content that's sponsored to be consumed freely - advertising, Fox News, etc.

While many a music fan would gladly cheer the end of the major label business model, the fact that sites like Allofmp3.com exist hurts SMALL labels too. In fact, independents are most likely to be affected by the loss of sales WAY before the majors.

I work promoting artists for independent record labels, and happened across Sufjan Steven's latest album, The Avalanche, available on that Russian site for $1.67...A MONTH BEFORE IT WAS EVEN RELEASED. Sufjan's label, Asthmatic Kitty, isn't likely to withstand an assault on their copyrighted and admittedly "niche" artists with this kind of piracy becoming acceptable among music fans who long to "stick it" to the record labels.

Its ability to duplicate sound, image and words can pose a threat to nearly all content, short of live peformances, original paintings and such.

That's FUD, pure & simple.

The ability to create duplicates can pose a threat, to nearly all content? Have enough qualifiers & weasel-words there?

This is the same argument that has been leveled against almost every form of reproductive technology for the last 30 years. Audio tapes threatened records, VCRs threatened studios & television networks, used CD stores selling promotional CDs threatened the recording industry. Lawsuits result, sometimes ascending to the Supreme Court, and yet somehow the sky remains intact, Chicken Little.

Over & over & over the same tired argument is made that any ability to reproduce content threatens to destroy the economics of producing that content.

Kinkos has not yet pushed Random House into bankrupsy, nor is likely to ever do so. Xerox did not destroy the publishing industry. The ability to tape songs from the radio, or make mixed tapes from my music library to give to friends did not destroy the music industry.

Ask Salon how much they'd publish if someone created a site where you could read the content without ads or subscription and their revenue plummeted to near-zero.

I find it deeply ironic that this statement is posted on the internet, where there are millions of people publishing content of all stripes, without subscription, with limited to no ad revenue. It's like standing in a snowstorm and complaining about the heat. At the same time, I can't help but point out how apples-and-oranges it is. Why do authors offer free readings from their books? For that matter, why do bookstores have chairs and couches? I can (and have) read entire novels in my local Borders Bookstore. It would appear that there is some revenue-generation market strategy in allowing consumers to sample content without ads, subscriptions, or other costs.

Besides which, content-producers can be motivated by more than revenue-production. In fact, content-production works best when revenue is an effect of production rather than the goal. Musicians produce good music because they love music! The perform because they love performing! If you've ever been to a performance where the performers didn't enjoy what they were doing, you remember it for being awful.

I believe that musicians and writers should be fairly compensated for their work. I believe in supporting artists and their works, but only if the work is of a good quality. If I hear a song & like it, I'm inclined to buy the album, not only to support the artist, but because I've had a sample of their work, and would like to hear more. Hmm... free samples as a method of distribution and sales... what a novel concept.

Does that mean there are no problems with the music industry? No, it means that those problems need to be handled in ways other than piracy; that it'd be better to have the music industry with problems than to not have the music because of piracy.

Piracy isn't a "solution" to the problems of the music industry, (or the film industry) it's a symptom of the problems. People are willing to pay money for music, and considerable amounts of it. People are interested in not just buying a song, but having the physical artifact of the disk & the liner notes and art. Time & again, researchers have shown that the "most downloaded" songs on p2p networks are also the top-selling songs for that same time period. Wrap your head around that one: the songs people are downloading the most are also selling the largest number of copies.

The quote above also presents a classic false dilemma: either you accept an industry that's failed its consumers to the degree of driving them to piracy, or you accept that there will be no music at all! (dun-dun-DUN)

The single-biggest driver of piracy is the disconnect between consumers and the music industry. (note I say "industry" rather than "producers"; concert attendance is not hurt by piracy) Consumers want to enjoy the music they purchase, in ways that are convienent and, well, enjoyable to them. They want to be able to listen to music they purchase at home, in their car, while working out at the gym, while playing games on their PC. They want to be able to share music they like with their friends, the way they used to with mixed tapes. They want to be able to enjoy the benefits of advanced technology for more convinience, moving from bulky boxes of audio tapes to binders of CDs to flash-memory based mp3 players. They want the ability to sample products before purchase, the ability to purchase ala carte the content they want, rather than bundles of content they don't, and they want it priced at a reasonable level.

Meanwhile, the music industry is attempting to abolish established legal concepts like "fair use" and "time-shifting", filing lawsuits to prevent (digital) recording of staellite radio feeds for the purposes of time-shifting. Customers who legally purchase music to play on their computers found themselves treated like criminials, with restrictive rootkit software installed without permission or consent. Customers who want to buy music as electronic files are faced with restrictive DRM, locking them into using a specific player/format/software, unable to move songs from one device to another, with a lifetime limitation on copies they can make. (if any!)

This is little more than classic market economics. Give the customer what they want, and they will pay for it. Fail to give them what they want, and they will find a way (legal or otherwise) of getting it.