|
|
Coolfer, I love ya, buddy, but I think you're overreacting on this one.
...[I]f you write about computers and technology, you think the music industry is filled with idiots. And, of course, because you write about computers and technology, because you know a thing or two about laptop battery life and open source programming, your alternative business stategy blows away that of the music industry.
I went to the article. and checked it out for myself.
The record industry continues to simultaneously regard the Internet as a threat to its existence and the key to prosperity.
While the industry clings to the argument that file sharing hurts sales because people won't buy what they can get for free, record labels have begun to offer free, high-quality streams of soon-to-be-released albums in hopes the exposure will stimulate sales.
The contradiction couldn't be more striking, nor more puzzling. In its continuing campaign against sharing copyrighted songs, the industry has filed lawsuits against thousands of people, rejecting the notion that exposure to free music helps listeners identify what they like and may later buy.
Apparently the record industry believes access to free music does indeed boost sales - but only if the music is shared by a label, not by a music fan with a home computer and Internet access.
Perhaps I'm just missing something here, but what's so staggeringly wrong about this observation? The first paragraph lays out a premise. The second paragraph points out two actions which the labels (taken as a broad grouping) have done (links to sources would have been nice, but it doesn't appear that the Richmond Times is operating in a web world yet). The third para opens with an opinion, pointing out the way in which the two statements from para two are seemingly in opposition to each other. This followed by an additional fact (lawsuits are filed) and an inferred opinion (since the labels are suing, the writer assumes that they are rejecting a notion which he/she puts forward). He/She then throws in a new summarization of the prior sentences.
Is this spot on reporting? Not at all -- it's a local paper in a small market city. I was hardly expecting Edward R. Murrow. But the sarcasm's a bit much. It might even shock you, but some techies might just be able to contribute to the music industries travails.
Posted by Casper at October 14, 2004 11:49 PM