All Things Digital

Back in 2000-2001, when the Recording Industry Association of America was still trying to recover from its CD price-fixing scheme with poorly reasoned justifications for CD price inflation (”Listen, if CD prices were governed by the Consumer Price Index, you’d be paying $33.86 for them instead of $12.75!”), a little company called Napster came calling. Napster had pioneered a new Internet distribution model for digital media that was revolutionizing the music industry, and it hoped to partner with RIAA member labels to create a subscription-based service.

At the time, Napster had some 20 million users worldwide and was essentially the de-facto file-sharing standard. Had the RIAA labels agreed to the alliance, they might have turned peer-to-peer distribution into a new and powerful business model, one with low distribution and marketing costs and a fast developing user base. But they didn’t. They chose another route.

Big mistake. Along came Gnutella. And increased broadband penetration and cheaper storage. Along came Kazaa. And then came BitTorrent. And, well, look at the industry now.

Given such history, it’s difficult to look at the recording industry’s plan to have a monthly fee added to consumers’ internet-service bills and not shake your head in wonderment.

Portfolio.com reports that Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group (TWX) has indeed hired veteran industry consultant Jim Griffin (no relation to Peter, right?) to quarterback a plan under which consumers pay an Internet-access surcharge of $5 a month for the collective right to freely share music. Those fees would be pooled and divvied up among artists and their labels.

“Ideally, music will feel free,” says Griffin. “Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It’s already been paid for.”

Ah- charge everyone for all music. So it is Monetization Without Representation. OK. But what gives the music industry the right to tax all broadband users because it suspects some of them might illegally share its content? And if the music industry deserves that right, then doesn’t the film industry deserve it as well? And the publishing industry? And any other industry that might benefit from such a tax?

As David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai (AKAM), notes Griffin’s plan is problematic. And desperate.

Said Barrett:, “It’s too late to charge people for what they’re already getting for free. This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation.”

If you lack the moral compass with which to determine ownership of digital music, Recording Industry Association of America president Cary “tough love” Sherman would like to provide you with one. Speaking at the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee’s State of the Net Conference in late January, Sherman suggested that rather than filtering the Internet globally for copyright infringements, as some have proposed, it might be better to filter it locally. At the end-user level–with spyware built into ISP-provided modems, routers and perhaps anti-malware and media software as well. “Filters can be put in the applications for example,” Sherman said. “You know, one could have a filter on the end user’s computer.”

Why would anyone agree to such a thing? For their personal enrichment, of course. “I don’t think you can estimate the educational benefit of these things. … A lot of this is basically letting people know that what they’re doing is not OK,” Sherman reasoned. “And for a lot of people that makes a difference in their behavior.”

A bit of stretch, even for Sherman, as Ars Technica aptly notes: “Filtering as a concept is ultimately doomed by encryption unless the ‘filters’ simply block entire protocols altogether, and talking about the consumer benefits of installing RIAA-approved filtering software is just another sign of how ludicrous the entire debate has become.”

The Recording Industry Association of America demands damages of $150,000 per song for file-sharing infringements, yet it pays the artists who create those songs pennies for their work. And now it wants to pay them even less.

The RIAA and its online counterpart, the Digital Media Association, have petitioned the Copyright Royalty Board to slash the so-called mechanical royalties paid to musicians and music publishers for digital downloads, subscription music services and ringtones. Seems the RIAA and DiMA feel they’ve suffered unfairly during the transition to digital distribution and they’d like artists to share in their misery.

The National Music Publishers’ Association, noting the favorable economies of digital distribution, asks for a royalty of 15 cents per track for permanent digital downloads. The RIAA argues that a royalty of approximately 5 cents to 5.5 cents per track is more reasonable. The DiMA–which represents Apple, Amazon and RealNetworks, among others–suggests cutting that royalty further still.

Find that astonishing? Just wait; it gets worse. For streaming music services, the NMPA proposes a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA finds 0.58% of revenue more reasonable. And the DiMA says there really shouldn’t be any royalty at all. “Fundamentally, this fragile marketplace is showing signs of promise, but it cannot be saddled with additional, excessive costs,” the DiMA argues. “The board should be careful not to impose a royalty that kills the proverbial goose and deprives songwriters and publishers of their golden egg.”

An interesting choice of metaphor and one in which the DiMA and RIAA might easily figure as the giant at the top of the beanstalk:

Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum!??
I smell the blood of a musician.
Be he ‘live, or be he dead,
I’ll grind his bones to make my bread.”

Grind his bones to make my bread, indeed.

Said Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America: “Our opponents have to recognize that this rate-setting is not a matter of gamesmanship for songwriters, but rather one of survival. As I stated in my testimony, in response to a question from those seeking to cut the mechanical royalty rate in half and to denigrate the importance and contribution of professional songwriters to the music industry, ‘Yes, songs are plentiful, just as rocks are plentiful. But if you want diamonds, you are going to have to pay the miners a living wage.’ ”

According to last year’s safely-looking-ahead-to-the-year-to-come lists, 2007 was to be “a year of hyperdisruption for the technology industry”; it was to be “a year of significant developments” and “a year of evolution”; it was to be “a year of invention and innovation,” “a year of experimentation” and “a year of slow, but significant, change”; it was to be “a year of carnage,” but it was also to be “a year of great happiness and multiple blessings.” Above all, 2007 was to be “a busy year for technology.”

Which, as you’ll see below (and in our companion video), is pretty much how it turned out. What follows is Digital Daily’s abridged guide to the year in tech news–a fond reminiscence of what was, and our First Annual Year-End List For Year-End List Haters.

1. Yahoo Shareholders Reject Plan to Tie Executive Compensation to Company’s Crappy Performance
   Well, what do you know: Yahoo’s annual shareholder meeting didn’t conclude with CEO Terry Semel’s head piked on the exclamation point of the Yahoo sign outside company headquarters.

2. I Know It Was You, Fredo. You Broke My Heart. You Broke My Heart!
   Apparently, Fred Anderson is the “Fredo” of the Apple options backdating family.

3. We’ve Asked John Williams to Do a Special Performance of the Theme From “The Poseidon Adventure” for Our Q4 Results
   Who’s programming Microsoft’s on-hold music, Apple’s Phil Schiller? Waiting for the company’s third-quarter earnings call to begin yesterday, those listening in were treated to an instrumental piano version of Celine Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On.” From “Titanic,” the disaster movie.

4. I’m Proud to Say Our New “Soylent Green” iPod Is Made of 100% Biodegradable Greenpeace Activists!
   If you’re going to try to smear Apple for reckless environmental practices, you best have some hard epidemiological and toxicological data on hand, because goofy Photoshop treatments of the company’s marketing materials just can’t stand up to a blow from the Apple PR machine.

5. And Online Display Impressions Soared as More Americans Checked Their AOL Accounts for Old Times’ Sake
   To hear tell from Time Warner executives, the company’s better-than-expected earnings for the first quarter owed quite a bit to gains in online-advertising market share by its AOL Internet division.

6. Web 2.0 Audience in Mirror May Be Smaller Than It Appears
   How ironic is it that Web 2.0–the “participatory Web”–has far fewer participants than its architects would have us believe?

7. And for My Next Trick, I’ll Turn Myself Into a Complete Jackass
   If you’re going to demand that YouTube remove a video to which you object under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it’s probably wise to make sure that you actually understand the DMCA.

8. War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. DRM Is DCE.
   You can’t put frosting on manure, but HBO’s Chief Technology Officer Bob Zitter isn’t above trying.

9. We’re Naming It the Motorola STNKR, After Our Q1 Earnings …
   Carl Icahn was right. Motorola really is desperate for a new product. How else to explain a patent the company was awarded last month for a “communication device having a scent-release feature and method thereof.”

10. The Frienemy of My Frienemy Is My Enemiend
    If Microsoft is planning an acquisition in the online marketing and advertising space, it better act fast, because if it waits much longer there won’t be anything left to acquire.

11. How Would Monsieur Ellison Like His BEA Served? Mixed in a Bucket With Oracle’s Other Acquisitions?
    Looks like we may be in for another PeopleSoft-esque takeover drama …

12. I’m Just Biding My Time Here Until I Can Quit and Study Whale Feces Full Time
    Given the chance, how would you alter the course of your career? Well, if you worked at Microsoft’s Security Response Center, you might consider taking a job as an Olympic drug tester, a gravity research subject, or a “whale-feces researcher.”

13. Much Like Energy, BS Cannot Be Created or Destroyed, It Can Only Be Changed From One Form to Another
    If Steorn’s perpetual motion effort is anything like its e-commerce venture (and by all accounts things do seem to be going that way), the only thing in its future is insolvency.

14. From Now On, We’ll Be Known as Nlsn/NtRtings
    Looks like vowels won’t be the only accoutrements to be tossed aside in the rise of Web 2.0. The venerable page view is to be abandoned as well.

15. The Defendant Stands Accused of Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract and Misappropriation of Dumb Luck
    According to popular legend Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg once kept two versions of his business card in his wallet–one with the title CEO, the other with “I’M CEO . . . BITCH.”

16. Well, Here Come YouTube’s Video ID Tools. Guess That Means Godot Will Be Here Any Minute Now
    Google’s apparently finished “educating users about copyright law” and has moved on to the far more important business of making sure not to run afoul of it.

17. Look at It This Way: Now That Yahoo’s an ‘Ecosystem,’ the EPA Can Finally Declare It a Superfund Site
    “Our financial performance is not what we would like to see long-term.” This, from Blake Jorgensen, Yahoo’s chief financial officer who, just six weeks into the job, is already well versed in the company’s fiscal truisms.

18. Gates to Google: My Lyrical Technique Will Leave Your Body Weak
    Much as Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates fancies himself untroubled by Google’s incursions into his software empire, they clearly do chafe him a bit.

19. Newest Yahoo Mail Feature: BCC Beijing
    Sure, Yahoo signed China’s “Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry,” a voluntary agreement to monitor and restrict information deemed “harmful” by Beijing, but did it have to take it quite so seriously?

20. Apple: Wham, Bam, Thank You Fanboi
    “I feel like a $200 whore.” That was one iPhone early adopter’s crass assessment of his feelings of self-worth, after Apple unexpectedly cut the price of the device by a third–just two months after it arrived at market.

21. In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing, Sergey’s California King May Be Used as a Flotation Device
    With its onboard hammocks, full-size sofas and California King beds, it’s a wonder Google’s “party plane” has room for scientific instrumentation befitting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but apparently it does.

22. Act Now and Get a Downgrade to the OS You Really Want, ABSOLUTELY FREE!
    It’s looking more and more like the pent-up demand for Windows Vista we’ve heard so much about this past year is really just pent-up demand for Windows XP.

23. Dude, I Work for Friggin Forbes Magazine. Have You Heard of It?
    The year-long guessing game is over. New York Times reporter Brad Stone has outed Daniel Lyons, a senior editor at Forbes magazine, as the author of the Secret Diary of Steve Jobs, the satirical blog lampooning Apple’s iconic CEO (See? Told you it wasn’t me).

24. If Facebook’s Worth $15 Billion, Then My Stupid Idea’s Got to Be Good for $10 Mil
    Apparently the vainglory from which Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears to suffer is communicable and spreading rapidly throughout the social network’s developer community.

25. A Billion Here, a Billion There, and Pretty Soon You’re Talking Real Bollocks
    MySpace is worth $65 billion in the same way that Facebook is worth $15 billion–hypothetically.

26. “Apple Has Destroyed the Music Business”–Not That We Didn’t Try Our Best
    Many, many years ago, when the digital-music business consisted of little else besides Napster and the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuits against it, Apple proved that there was indeed a decent business to be had in selling music online for $1 per song.

27. It’s Not an Unpaid Endorsement, It’s a “Social Ad”
    Facebook’s Social Ads aren’t endorsements, they’re a “representation” of user activity.

28. Obama Announces “No Tech Policy Left Behind” Plan
    If Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful, then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s is to do the same to its tech-policy issues.

29. Sounds More Like the “Zune of Reading” to Me
    If Jeff Bezos truly hopes to create “the iPod of reading,” observers say he’s going to have to do a hell of a lot better than Amazon’s new Kindle e-book reader.

30. Fiascobook
    What Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg lacks in foresight, he certainly makes up for in disingenuous hair-shirt remorse.

A $9,250 per-song fine might seem an excessive punishment for illegally sharing music for no personal gain, but it’s really not. According to the U.S. Justice Department, anyway.

The DOJ says the $222,000 in damages awarded to the Recording Industry Association of America in the Virgin Records America et al. v. Thomas copyright-infringement case is constitutional. Seems it didn’t quite buy Thomas’s argument that fining someone - particularly a single mother of two - $222,000 for songs that could be bought for $24 on iTunes violates a Supreme Court precedent that prohibits fines that are “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable.”

From the DOJ’s brief:

Although defendant claims that plaintiffs’ damages are 70 cents per infringing copy, it is unknown how many other users–‘potentially millions’–committed subsequent acts of infringement with the illegal copies of works that the defendant infringed. Accordingly, it is impossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the Internet. Furthermore, plaintiffs contend that their witnesses ‘testified to the substantial harm caused by the massive distribution of their copyrighted sound recordings over the Internet, including lost revenues, layoffs and a diminished capability to identify and promote new talent…’

“Most recently, Congress has crafted a statute that serves as a deterrent to those infringing parties who think they will go undetected in committing this great public wrong, as well as providing compensation to copyright owners who have to invest resources into protecting property that is often unquantifiable. Accordingly, given the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act’s statutory damages provision did not violate the due process clause…”

Many, many years ago, when the digital-music business consisted of little else besides Napster and the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuits against it, Apple proved that there was indeed a decent business to be had in selling music online for $1 per song. With iTunes, it quickly established a market for paid downloads as the music industry wrung its hands in utter incomprehension at this new age of digital distribution that was dawning.

So it is ironic, enormously ironic, to hear NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker accuse Apple of ruining the music business (like that second Lindsay Lohan album didn’t do any damage at all). Speaking at a breakfast organized by Syracuse University’s Newhouse School, Zucker said Apple “destroyed the music business in terms of pricing” and will invariably do the same to the online video business.

Noting that NBCU booked just $15 million in revenue during the last year of its iTunes deal, Zucker described the company’s deal with Apple’s digital media store as one that was corrosive to its media business. “We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” he said. What Zucker does want is a piece of Apple’s iPod business. “Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money,” Zucker said. “They did not want to share in what they were making off the hardware or allow us to adjust pricing.”

Can’t imagine that’s going to change anytime soon, either–no matter how loudly Zucker whines. Apple CEO Steve Jobs would probably rather swallow a Zune whole than be pressured into handing over a percentage of iPod sales to record labels, as Microsoft has done with Zune.

Something like X times Y, to the power of Z–where X is the lack of a sustainable business model, Y is an aggravated response to a nonexistent threat, and Z is the inability to differentiate between customers and thieves.”

–Toronto Globe and Mail writer Mathew Ingram explains the formula used to calculate damages in Virgin Records America et al. v. Thomas.

We’re never going to hear the end of it now …

The recording industry won its first ever file-sharing suit to go to trial yesterday, when a federal jury found 30-year-old Jammie Thomas liable for copyright infringement. The jury awarded the six record labels involved in the case a total of $220,000, or $9,250 for each of the 24 songs they claimed Thomas uploaded.

Seems it was far easier for the labels to sell the jury on their investigative methods than you might think–especially after the presiding judge ruled that no proof was needed that anyone actually downloaded the songs at issue in the case–simply making them available constituted distribution.

Emboldened by the ruling, the Recording Industry Association of America took a break from sending prelitigation settlement letters to college students to issue this gloating statement: “The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. When the evidence is clear, we will continue to bring legal actions against those individuals who have broken the law. This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services.”

Reading that you’d never think it’s been eight years since Napster, would you? Eight years. Anyway …

Attorney Ray Beckerman, writing in the Recording Industry Vs. the People blog, called the verdict “one of the most irrational things” he’s ever seen in law. “A verdict of $222,000, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?” he asked. “In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files? It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with checkbooks. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.

“All the businesspeople who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy and freedom of expression which is the Internet need to get behind the RIAA’s victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.

“The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.”

Since September 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America has filed more than 21,000 illegal downloading suits. Yesterday, testimony began in the first one ever to go to trial.

The case is Virgin Records America et al. v. Thomas, and it pits Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two from central Minnesota, against the RIAA, which claims she distributed more than 1,700 audio files on file-sharing site Kazaa in 2005. Thomas could have settled out of court for $3,000–perhaps even through the RIAA’s handy online settlement processing site, but refused, protesting her innocence. Now, she faces a potential liability of $3.9 million in damages, plus legal fees.

“The plaintiffs don’t have the evidence that she downloaded anything,” Thomas’s attorney, Brian Toder, told jurors yesterday. “The best that they can come up with is somebody out there in cyberland … offered on Kazaa some copyrighted material.” His point: while the RIAA has the Internet protocol address it claims was used to illegally share the songs at issue in the case, it must demonstrate that Thomas was actually using it in order to win the case. And that may well prove difficult.

“In sum, the case will be the first test of the RIAA’s ability to sell a jury on its investigative methods, which have a degree of imprecision because of the anonymous nature of the Internet,” writes Jon Healey of the Los Angeles Times. “Internet protocol addresses aren’t painted on the side of a computer like a street address, and even if the RIAA were able to trace a shared file back to a specific PC or Mac, it’s not easy to prove who was sitting at the keyboard. It will also be the first chance for a judge to instruct a jury on the legality of making songs available for others to download. And it will be the first time a jury will weigh whether to bring the hefty penalties provided under copyright law down on a consumer–in Thomas’s case, one who probably spends more on music than its members do.”