Another end to a very busy week! Between a bunch of deadlines and "fire-fighting" at work, trying to get fully caught up with school and laying out the NCSC newsletter – The Collegian, I’m glad that the weekend is finally here and that all of these projects are calming down…
I’m in a technological mood, so I thought a technology reflection would be fitting…
Reason #932 to hate the RIAA. Earlier this week, a story was released about how the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), through a legal filing with the government, is contesting CD-Ripping for the purpose of creating album back-ups as existing outside of "fair use" and is therefore illegal.
What does this mean? When I buy a CD, the first thing I do (when I’m finally able to surgically remove it from the wrapping) is pop it right into my computer and rip it right to my computer. Under no circumstances will the CD go into my car’s CD player, home CD player, discman (when I had one) or anything until it’s been inside of my computer’s CD drive. Anyone who knows me knows that I take horrible care of my CD’s, and that it’s only a matter of weeks before the CD is likely smudged, scratched or ultimately destroyed. I would be making weekly trips to Best Buy just to restock the CD’s I’ve damaged, but because I made a back-up of the CD it’s just a matter of burning a new one and I’m back in business. The way I see it is that if I’m not going to rely on my $10-13 investment to be secured in material that cost less than $.90 to produce. To not make back-ups is foolish in my mind…
However the RIAA sees it differently. According to their argument, CD’s shouldn’t be damaged by "ordinary use", and when "replacements are readily available at affordable prices" you shouldn’t have the need to back-up your CD’s. This becomes a bigger issue when you take this into the context of ripping the music onto your iPod or MP3 player. It’s not clear whether this argument is going to translate into a lobbying for legal policy, but nevertheless it just shows you how ridiculous and obsolete the RIAA has become.
First off: "ordinary use" – does anyone from the RIAA have a CD player in their car? Just having your CD’s when driving around is enough to damage them. I think about how many times I take them in and out of those cases, the amount of jostling my CD holders experience, and then when you think about all of the dust and dirt that fly around in your car, that alone is enough to cause some significant damage to your CD’s. How many of us have never damaged a CD before? I’d venture to say that no one can raise their hand in response to that question.
Secondly, for the RIAA allow this argument to lend itself in the "CD to iPod" discussion further shows you that the MP3 issue is not so much about money as it is the RIAA’s inability to control the music industry and continue to be the sole source in the music business. For what Apple has done with the iPod (along with the other companies that make Mp3 players) – RIAA should be sending Apple (and iTunes) and all of the other on-line music retailers flowers and fruit baskets every week for the next decade. They’ve pretty much saved the music industry and found a very viable way in making MP3’s profitable. I’m willing to bet that the RIAA throws darts at the Apple logo in their office because Apple came up with the idea instead of the RIAA – something they’re not willing to tolerate.
This whole issue is crap and continues to affirm that the RIAA is still looking to do more damage before they realize their obsolescence. I’ve said this before, but if the RIAA spent even a small fraction of the energy they use fighting technological advancements, and used that energy in the support and promotion of these advancements – they’d be more successful than in their wildest dreams.
I’m now an Insider! After months of contemplating, I’ve decided to finally take the plunge and pay the $40-per-year to be an ESPN Insider. What this means is that I have access to all of the ESPN articles that have the little "yellow" "IN" labels next to them. For a while it seemed like the dumbest idea to pay money so I could look at a web site, but as time passed, it made more and more sense:
In order to subscribe to the Sunday Denver Post (receiving the paper once a week), would cost me $39. For $1 more I am able to access all of the sports information that I want – 24×7, all of the latest sports news that I want. Once upon a time I once got the newspaper, but the only thing I ever read from it was the sports section. I’d like to consider myself a well-versed person who keeps up on current events, but I have no interest in getting news from a newspaper – I look to other mediums to get me that information. I’ve demonstrated a history in using ESPN.com. I read it almost daily during my lunches and get updated on all of the major sporting news. At least once each day I thought to my self "That looks like a cool story, too bad it’s an Insider." No longer will I have to say that…
I find this noteworthy because I think that this represents a shifting in Internet usage, as well as a generational shift in how we receive our information. If I was to tell my mom that I’m spending money to access a web site she’d think it was a waste. Even my sports-loving uncle would probably have scratched his head wondering if I had that much money to spend, or if I was just a sucker… I don’t think our parents are particularly fond of reading that much on a computer screen, and ultimately will still look to paper sources of information – newspapers and magazines – as their primary reference.
On the shifting Internet usage, this is ultimately how ESPN.com and other new/information sites will make money – not by selling advertisements. If they are able to provide content that’s accessible, well-organized, current and insightful, then they have a product that they can sell – and a generation of consumers that are likely to take advantage of that. Newspapers – by offering all of their content on-line, eliminate the printed paper and just charge people a smaller fee (relative to subscribing to the paper edition) to access all of the content – will ultimately be able to save themselves (well that and stop trying to blatantly push their political agendas, allowing their editorial views to spill onto their news pages, but that’s another topic for another day). We are witnessing a transformation in how news services will distribute their information on the internet.