A relevant topic that has interested me is the way the RIAA has transformed the function of copyright law in the modern world in regards to the music industry and file sharing. Copyright law is supposed to encourage the flow of information, but the RIAA has been trying and succeeding in restricting this flow of information in their dealings with file-sharing offenders. They have instilled a certain fear in people so that they will never share files again, becoming a monopolizing faction in copyright law. They have the money and the legal backing to bully and intimidate the people they sue into settling out of court, even though most of the time they lack sufficient evidence and the practice of obtaining that evidence is of questionable legality. Recently however, people have started to stand up against the RIAA. Since the RIAA sues hundreds of people a day and therefore are still settling with ninety-nine of them, they seem to the public to not be making a difference. This is untrue however, because those that stand up to the RIAA are quietly taking them down bit by bit. The unconstitutional practices of the RIAA have since decreased due to the public outcry they have received, counterarguments won by the defendants such as legal fees have increased because the defendants press the RIAA about their lack of evidence, and more cases are being brought to court as public awareness increases. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize the RIAA has been taking advantage of people when one finds out that the RIAA has sued a dead person, a thirteen year old girl, and a divorced woman without a computer.

 

This is an article explaining the tactics used by the RIAA in obtaining information and evidence on illegal file-sharing, from information given by an RIAA worker himself. The RIAA hires a third party company, MediaSentry, to track down illegal file-sharers. That company then runs different peer-to-peer file-sharing programs and searches for songs specifically owned by the RIAA. They are then able to track down the specific IP address and the ISP from which the songs they find came from. They do not actually download the song however, using a digital handshake instead to let them know that the song is available for download. This complicates the matter because it is hard for me to believe that the RIAA can use a so called "digital handshake" as their main evidence when no actual download occurred. The fact that the file was in a shared folder and was ready to download does not mean the person themselves shared the file. The court case Atlantic v. Howell is a great example of this situation in which the court rule that "If the owner of the shared folder simply provides a member of the public with access to the work and the means to make an unauthorized copy, the owner is not liable as a primary infringer of the distribution right, but rather is potentially liable as a secondary infringer of the reproduction right." Also in that case the judge stated, "Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a "distribution" under ... 106(3) has not taken place," thereby negating the RIAA's claim. However, not all cases are even taken to court, and the RIAA is able to slip by with this lack of evidence by presenting it like it is their primary proof of infringement.

The article then goes on to talk about cases of a more serious nature and how the RIAA deals with it. They start off with the digital handshake but then MediaSentry personnel actually do download the songs in question. This to me seems backwards and wrong that the RIAA downloads the same songs, in the same manner, from the same programs, as the pirates they are trying to catch.

Capitol v. Foster is a major victory for those being bullied by the RIAA. It is a sign of hope that people can make cases against the RIAA and win, even though they seem very outmatched. This source is useful because of the ruling that rejected yet another theory used by the RIAA to control and transform copyright law. The theory that was rejected due to the ruling of the case was that Foster was not found liable for the file-sharing that occurred on her computer by others and over the internet access that she paid for. The judge ruled in this way because Mrs. Foster was ignorant of the fact that any file-sharing programs were on her computer, and that any file-sharing occurred. Her husband and daughter could have been the ones at fault but she could not be sued for something she did not do and did not know about. This is a huge blow to the RIAA's legal campaign because it adds insult to injury. Not only can an IP provide limited information about a specific copyright infringer, but the RIAA cannot get away with suing the owner of the computer without sufficient evidence anymore. They cannot intimidate people with the specific lie that they have hard evidence on the identity of the copyright infringer because when they are brought to court their evidence will not hold up.

This case is not representative of the way RIAA lawsuits go however. Still, most people tend to settle out of court because legal fees would outmatch the settlement fee. But this case is representative of the evidence that the RIAA uses and the inconclusiveness of it. If a person does take action against the RIAA, and are truthfully not a copyright infringer, they have a very good chance at winning the case. Fortunately for Foster, she was able to have her case dropped as well as win a counterclaim argument for attorney fees which amounted to more than 60,000 dollars. Resistance to the RIAA is ever increasing and with each case lost by the RIAA they lose that much more control over the direct copyright law is going and will go in the future

This website produced by the RIAA, is supposed to educate a person about illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement. Some questions that the RIAA pose and answer are both helpful and truthful, but there are also others that the RIAA answers with lies. It is interesting to look at these questions and realize the manipulation that the RIAA uses to persuade people into settling out of court, and the blatant lies they tell those people when doing so. From these questions I am able to gage the direction and steps that the RIAA is taking in order to successfully transform the laws on file-sharing and copyright to fit their liking.

For example, they declare that a person is sued because that person in particular has been identified as uploading or downloading copyrighted material without authorization. Most of the people they sue and take action against are not extremely tech saavy and therefore might not catch the lies in the previous statement. The truth is that the RIAA cannot single out a person, only a specific IP address, which only means that the action took place at a time. Basically, all they can prove is that at a certain time, which they can not pinpoint either, a person used the computer with the specific IP address mentioned and downloaded an illegal copyrighted file. They do not have enough evidence from that alone to win a case, but because they have the money to sue massive amounts of people in this way, they manage to settle many cases in their favor and out of court. However, some people do realize what an IP address is and realize the lack of evidence the RIAA has which results in the high profile cases in the news today. That false statement by the RIAA adds to the list of ways it has directly affected the flow of information and the way copyright law works. They have been able to bully their way out of court cases with lies such as that and the excessive amounts of money they have.

 

This source is a court document from the Atlantic Records v. Tanya Andersen court case. More specifically it is the complaint from the defendant Andersen, and the part that interests me is where it talks about the questionable legality of MediaSentry's investigations. Tanya Andersen is another person who had enough courage to stand up to the RIAA, and like Ms. Santangelo, she is a single mother. However, Ms. Andersen is also disabled and has a young daughter. This is another instance that shows the type of people targeted in these lawsuits by the RIAA and why they are usually so successful in settling cases out of court. They are transforming the way copyright law works into cases that mostly do not make it to court in order to make a lot of money and pretend like their way of justice is bringing awareness to the public about copyright infringement.

The focus of this source is to show the tendency of MediaSentry's investigations to be intrusive and invasive of privacy. By doing so, this also shows that the RIAA are also cutting corners but then try put the blame on MediaSentry when caught. For example, the complaint provides detail about MediaSentry's investigations explaining that without authorization and under the false pretext of being a peer user, they are able to hack into someone's computer and gather information illegally. They then sell the person's IP address to RIAA, therefore allowing the RIAA to claim they did not do anything illegal themselves. This illegal practice has become known over the past months and as a result, some states require private investigators to have licenses and to be registered. This is true in the state that Ms. Andersen calls home and for that reason MediaSentry's investigation is illegal and so are all their findings. This evidence of illegal investigations by a well known partner of the RIAA contributes to the belief that they are trying to transform copyright law to fit what they want, whether it be through legal or illegal ways.

This paper titled “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales” is a strong argument opposing the beliefs of the RIAA. The RIAA believe that illegal file-sharing is causing the downfall of the music industry, and that these illegal downloads are causing tremendous losses for artists in America. The reason that record sales are declining, they say, is due to the amount of illegal downloading occurring, so if they stop illegal downloading the music industry will thrive once again. However the RIAA polices file-sharing in a way that results in the person possibly never sharing music again. Their method severely restricts the flow of information, especially because there are instances in which the people they sue are not infringing upon anything yet will not share music again.

This paper maintains that file-sharing in fact helps the recording industry and that file-sharing is not the reason for the decline in record sales. Their argument makes sense to me, mostly because I have thought about it at times before as I am sure others have. They argue that people download songs to see if they like the artist they are listening to and they will be more inclined to buy the whole album if they like what they hear. People do not want to waste their money on an overpriced CD which they have never heard before. But if they download a song off the album and like what they hear, they are more inclined to buy it. If the person does not like the music, they are not going to pay for it anyways, no matter if they downloaded a song or not. People share files, and then discuss the music in chat rooms and servers which enhances the flow of information. Discussion leads to either the person buying the music or not buying the music, but either way information is being passed along. The RIAA is trying to stop this and instill fear in every file-sharer to never do it again or else they will go bankrupt due to all of the legal fees and fines they will incur. In essence they are trying to stop the flow of information as well as convince the world that there are no positive outcomes from file-sharing.

This paper provides evidence through surveys of file-sharers which points to file-sharing being beneficial towards record sales. It also brings up the idea that the reason for record sales declining is not due to file sharing, but due to the lack of popular music. Music produced during those years was not good enough in the eyes of the people to spend money on buying overpriced CDs, and the music that was popular to the people saw an increase in sales proportional to the amount of file-sharing that occurred for a particular song off the album.

 

This source is the definition of the term “ex parte.” I am going to need to cite the term in my paper because it is one of the more favorite ways of the RIAA to bully people. First they find out the IP addresses of the copyright infringer through private investigations done by MediaSentry. Since IP addresses can only identify that the infringement happened on a certain computer not the specific person that shared the files, the defendant becomes a John Doe and other measures need to be taken by the RIAA. This is where the “ex parte” order comes in to play. This “ex parte” order, if granted, allows for immediate discovery of the identity of the copyright infringer. The RIAA subpoenas the ISP (Internet Service Provider) of the IP address forcing them to give up otherwise confidential information such as names and addresses. Once the RIAA obtains that information they are able to sue the person in his own name.

“Ex parte” is the term used when one party talks to the judge without letting the other party know about it, and in the USA the courts maintain that both parties have to notify the other when talking to the courts. However, the RIAA has gained so much control over the way copyright law works that the courts normally permit such an order. Although it seems very unfair, illegal, and violates the constitutional right of fair notice, the RIAA has the power and people to make such an order almost routinely successful. The “ex parte” order is one of the most important ways the RIAA can control how copyright law works, but hopefully with the rise in cases being brought to trial this power will soon diminish.

 

This source is the decision in the Atlantic v. Howell case. This case is important in the fight to lower the power that the RIAA has over copyright law because it rejects 2 popular theories that the RIAA tries to use in their cases against file-sharers. This first theory is called “making available” theory of infringement and it holds that if a person has a folder or file which is shared and therefore is able to be downloaded, that person is infringing on copyright even though the file or contents of the folder were not necessarily downloaded. The rejection by the court of this theory is a major blow to the RIAA's strategy and weakens the power that the RIAA has over copyright law. The second theory is called “offer to distribute” theory and had been accepted in similar cases by the court. It means almost the same as the “making available” theory.

One of the most important factors of this case is that Mr. And Mrs. Howell represented themselves against the whole litigation team of the RIAA, and won. The court sided with the Howells, saying that just because MediaSentry went and downloaded a file off of the Howell computer does not mean they personally put the file in the shared folder. The Howell's argued that Kazaa shared their whole hard drive without their knowledge. The courts stated that although MediaSentry had evidence of a file being shared, there was no way it could tell who actually put it in there.

The decision favoring the Howells was a monumental victory for the little guy so to speak and provides hope that the RIAA is not unbeatable, although they try their best to seem so with their intimidation tactics and bullying.

The Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum case is arguably the most high profile file-sharing case in the news today for a number of reasons. First, the defendant, Tenenbaum, is being represented by a famous Harvard Law professor by the name of Charles Neeson. The fact that Neeson was attracted to this case speaks volumes of the potential change to be made in how copyright law runs in the modern world today. Second, this case shows to the common people the true motive of the RIAA. They are trying to make an example out of Tenenbaum, who downloaded seven songs, in order to intimidate everyone from sharing files on their computer. He is a small fish in a big pond to them, and they think that they can use the intimidation tactic of suing him for an exorbitant amount of money all the while instilling fear in those who are thinking of sharing files.

This leads to the reason why I am choosing to use this case as a source: Tenenbaum is not trying to win his case just so the RIAA can pay legal fees that incurred, rather he wants to tackle the organization's legal strategy at its core. He is trying to prove the unconstitutionality of their litigation tactics in order to severely limit their power and effectively hit them where it hurts. Someone is finally accusing them of abusing the law and constitutional rights, and has the legal team to back him as well. There is a major difference between reading court cases and reading the obvious abuse by the RIAA in them, and actually being proactive and trying to defend yourself and others. The people have had enough with the RIAA and their monopoly over copyright law in regards to file-sharing and the music industry and the measures they take to restrict the flow of information that copyright is supposed to encourage. People are not supposed to be so scared of the RIAA that they will not use the computer or send files ever again for fear of punishment. The modern world we live in is changing largely into a digital world, and the RIAA is trying to stop us from moving forward by squashing our hunger for new information with their unconstitutional strategies.

This source is a blog written by one of Prof. Neeson's students in his CyberOne class, who are also helping out Tenenbaum in his legal battle. This source also provides links to the portions of the court case documents themselves which could potentially be very helpful in my paper if I need to locate something specific in the case.

The Virgin v. Thomas case is not being used as a source in my paper for its positive outcome or because it somehow decreased the RIAA's power over copyright law. Actually, Thomas is losing her case, was hit with a 222,000 dollar judgment, and has since sought new legal advisors. What is very important about this particular case is the awareness this case has raised around Internet circles. People have websites devoted to “Freeing Jammie”, donations are being made in her name so she can pay the 222,000 dollars as well as finance an appeal, and awareness of RIAA abuse is thriving more than ever in Internet forums and chat rooms.

The amicus brief submitted by a handful of law professors strengthens the argument that more and more people are gaining knowledge and are willing to fight back against the RIAA. The amicus brief also presents new evidence and questions about copyright law, such as what is fair and what is infringement. For example, they state that the Copyright Act gives copyright owners the exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” Making a work available to the public, they believe, does not constitute distribution. They also make their case and point to reject the synonymy between the words “distribute” and “publication.” They make a convincing argument that is relevant to my topic and back it up with multiple sources.

Before reading this brief I wondered whether the exclusive right of a copyright owner under the Copyright Act actually applied to a computer file. I wondered this because the Copyright Act protects phonorecords and copies which I take to be actual tangible items. There is a gray are for me when I think about Copyright Law and a computer file because a file is not tangible. After reading this brief I feel that this exclusive right cannot apply based off of the Copyright Act, but rather a provision or amendment needs to be made which outlines if and when a computer file is protected.

 

This is a lengthy article that analyzes the RIAA litigation process from head to toe. It is a great source to cite in my paper because of the massive amount of information that it provides as well as fine details that it includes which would otherwise be very hard to find. It is presumably written and put on the Internet by Ray Beckerman, an active lawyer in the fight against the recording industry and their dubious tactics. He goes through each step in the process one by one, gives insight on it and defines terms where necessary, and cites specific cases in which that particular step was of significant importance. He also cites specific people that are fighting against the RIAA in a particular step and then moves on to the next process of RIAA litigation.

The main places that I will potentially cite from this website will come from the information provided on the processes of “ex parte” discovery as well as the analysis given regarding the RIAA's routine motions for dismissal of counterclaims. These are two major reasons for the RIAA's success in recent cases, and this article is trying to convey the fact that with proper knowledge of the way the RIAA litigation process works the RIAA can indeed be taken down. Their frequent use of “Ex parte” discovery is sickening, but if one knows that the RIAA is likely to try and use this tactic, however unconstitutional it is, adjustments can be made and abuse can be prevented.

I also find it somewhat amusing and unbelievable how much authority the RIAA thinks it has, and how much authority the people believe it has. Due to their intimidation tactics, “ex parte” orders, an expensive legal team, and often abusive and forceful pre-litigation letters, the RIAA seems to be in complete control of copyright law in the modern United States. They can do what they want and get away with it, even if most practices are of questionable legality. This source states that while the RIAA tries to dismiss counterclaims brought up by defendants as if they have the authority to do so, they actually do not. For example, they have not been able to cite any legal authority to dismiss counterclaims for legal fees.

Finally, this source provides descriptions on the types of people that the RIAA has tried to sue, further strengthening the idea that change is needed and that the RIAA is getting more and more abusive in their practices each day. Yes it is true that college students are normally who the RIAA target, but it is know that they have also tried to sue children, their guardians, a single mother who did not live at the residence the copyright infringement occurred, and last but not least a person who is actually deceased.

 

This is a great blog that includes an interview with Patricia Santangelo on Good Morning America and it gives great insight on the types of alleged copyright infringers that the RIAA has been going after. Patricia is being sued by the RIAA for something she did not do. This case is very indicative of the intimidation and blackmailing tactics that the RIAA uses against the people they sue. Ms. Santangelo however did not concede to their tactics and took them to court. They tried making her settle out of court so that her name would not be mentioned in a lawsuit, and they told her that a much more severe fine would be in store for her if she went to trial. The RIAA has almost an unlimited supply of money they use this factor to pressure those being sued. But because she did not download anything or do anything wrong, she did not give in to their pressure and did not settle with them. This case is fascinating because of who the RIAA set out to sue. The computer that was found with illegally downloaded songs was not at Ms. Santangelo's place of residence, she is divorced and the computer is located at her previous residence, and she does not have the financial means to pay the lawsuit. Also, before the case she knew nothing about illegal downloads on her computer, about Kazaa, or even what an IP address was.

It is unbelievable to me that the RIAA can amount enough gusto to try and sue this helpless person who has no idea what is going on. It is an awful attempt to make a few more dollars, and an even worse attempt at trying to promote awareness on the severity of illegal downloads. It is not right to go after a divorced mother who has very limited technological knowledge and who could not have possibly been at fault. The RIAA can not possibly be gaining any support when they sue people such as Ms. Santangelo. Luckily, Ms. Santangelo is fighting them, and in doing so she is raising awareness of the intimidation tactics the RIAA uses. Ms. Santangelo is only one person however, and for every one there are another hundred people who give in to the bullying of the RIAA.

    This letter was written by the IIPA as a response to the request of public comments regarding the ACTA. The document offers empirical evidence, which demonstrates the importance of the copyright sector to the U.S. economy in terms of contributions to the GDP. The letter also includes evidence of the losses the copyright-dependent industries have incurred because of piracy. The IIPA supports the ACTA in its quest for establishing stricter international standards for enforcing copyright.
    The opinion of the IIPA provides an economic perspective to the issue of infringement of intellectual property rights. It is clear that the U.S. has incurred losses due to piracy and this fact further complicates my research question because these losses cannot be easily dismissed. They are the primary motivator for the U.S. to seek international agreements on this issue. In the end, the ultimate goal of the U.S. is to protect its own industries and economy. Even though the empirical evidence is only about the United States, it implies that one of the causes is the disjointed international system for dealing with piracy. The IIPA supports the ACTA and the establishment of another set of rules that countries must follow. It is most concerned about the positive effect copyright has had on the U.S. industries and the detrimental consequences of international piracy. The letter presents a narrow point of view by including only raw numbers by a handful of studies. It also talks only about copyright in the context of the U.S. and thus paints an incomplete picture of the global situation. After all, the U.S. is connected to other countries and piracy is an international phenomenon.

This New York Times article by David F. Gallagher, outlines the shift from old media to blogs as a means of generating buzz for a new band.  The article went on record as citing Warner as the first major label to ask an MP3 blogs to play its music in the form of downloadable MP3 files on the blog Music For Robots. It also provides a cautionary tale for blogs attempting to expand within the confines of a major label.  Warner's attempted to circumvent any bad comments by posting several comments saying how their band, The Secret Machines, was "so cool."  When Music For Robots got wind of this they turned apprehensive to future major label involvement, saying that Warner's had turned the blog into something as deplorable as an "AOL chatroom."

This article gives weight to the argument that it would be tough for blogs to retain their independent credibility once they are bedfellows with major labels (conflicts of interest, and downright manipulation by labels could arise).  It complicates my argument that a blogs could truly work alongside labels without being crushed by the corporate steamroller.  However, it does add weight to my point that MP3 blogs have become legitimized by labels as a viable venture in band promotion.  Also , it reaffirms that record labels have now become middle men in the music industry.  If new bands appealed directly to blogs, they could avoid the major label, and appeal directly to an audience--thus beginning their careers, like Vampire Weekend

This article is a roundtable orchestrated by The Morning News .Org consisting of several blog editors discussing the ethics and future of blogs. Oliver Wang of Soul Sides Blog and Sean Michaels of the Said the Gramophone get into an argument during the roundtable about the financial responsibility blogs have to the artists whose MP3's they upload.  Wang contends that artists,generally, do not make money off of record sales and cites touring as their main means of revenue.  Wang decides that the name recognition that MP3 blogs give these artists is more important than a few missing sales.  Michaels, howevers, rebuts with the fact that not all artists are able to tour (laptop based acts, tiny indie acts, and even older defunt bands such as the Beatles).  Michaels acknowledges that name recognition is a powerful gift but says to think of the fiscal effect of their piracy as "negligible" is a facile argument.  Michaels contends that the purpose of his blog is to expose an audience to new music, and for them to purchase the music.  Andrew Nosnitsky, of the Cocaine Blunts blog, chimes by saying that his blog deals in the out of print and obscure--so he in no way feels any fiscal responsibility.

This article both helps and complicates my argument that  MP3 blogs have transformed the music industry for the better.  The idea of using MP3 blogs as used bins/ rental emporiums is an interesting idea.  In the utopian view, the audience would take the MP3 for a while, delete the track after a thorough listen, then purchase the track if they liked it.  However, this view seems pretty naive and very 'honor-system' based.  How can blogs be sure that the illegal MP3 won't just remain on a user's computer. Also it calls into question the idea of 'name-recognition' being the most important thing for a new band.

This rebuttal ironically comes from a music blogger, and complicates my claim that blogs are poised to supersede traditional labels.  Dave Allen of Pempelmoose, states that blogs will simply not be the new music labels.  He credits this thinking to the crisis-mode state that the entire music industry is in and their hastiness to "grasp at straws."  His counterpoints center on a blogs' need to remain independent and his idea that record labels will not discontinue their functions as A&R sources.  Allen rebuts by saying that a blog must remain pure.  Plainly said, if they are contaminated by the corporate steamroller, blogs will lose the credibility they have garnered throughout the years.  Also, if MP3 blogging becomes a careerist endeavor, blogs will be shackled by a conflict of interest (promoting their own bands), betraying the very nature on which MP3 Blogs were founded. Also in regards to A&R, Allen states that the ceiling is caving in on major, not indie labels, who he claims to be thriving and will continue to act as band developers.

Allen is correct that if MP3 blogging became about money and sales, a conflict of interest would ensue.  However, there would be other blogs around who would police these postulated 'label-blogs' and poseurs would be quickly flagged and discredited.  Allen's second point is also true--major labels are flailing.  However that is all the more reason why MP3 blogs could become the new labels.  Capitalizing on the lack of trust in major record labels, a new system could develop--a congregation of smaller blogs.   

Legal Outlook For Blogs--Revisited

This article was written by Urs Gasser, a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law school.  In this article, Gasser examines the legal outlook for MP3 blogs and whether or not they are prime for litigation.  To determine this, Gasser examines the economic significance detailing blogs' relatively small size, means of musical promotion, their 'niche' clientele, and the short-term availability of the linked files as viable legal defenses for MP3 Bloggers.  Gasser also makes a Fair Use argument for both Blog uploaders and downloaders--citing that the non-comercial status of these blogs and their promotional effect don't have a negative impact on said markets.  Gasser also acknowledges the role that record labels play in the survival of blogs--by intentionally leaking teasers and unreleased tracks.  
 
This article sets up several premises of my paper.  It establishes MP3 blogs as the new gate-keepers of the music industry, citing these blogs as the effective modes of instantaneous promotion.  An important point is Gasser's mentioning that the record industry voluntarily leaks tracks to these blogs--snubbing the copyright law they have sued for in the past.  This point reaffirms my claim that record-labels themselves have taken part in legitimizing MP3 blogs as a means of new media.

 

This article by Forutune Magazine senior writer Devin Leonard, features Jon Cohen and Rob Stone, two veteran music marketers who have turned to MP3 web sites to reach their much desired demographic.  However, the difference lies in the fact that these two have gotten advertisers (blue chip companies) to sponsor free downloading.  They have set up a network of MP3 blogs and have already inked deals with Microsoft and Toyota.  The two say that Fortune 500 companies are finally realizing that blogs are where influential tastemakers graze, the same gatekeepers (with a constant audience) they want to advertise their products to.  While independent blogs have troubles obtaining profitable ads on their sites (due to the posting of illegal copy-written material), Cohen and Stone have capitalized because their network of blogs (serving only authorized material) has an audience of 240,000 which is more enticing to advertisers.

This article takes the postulated ideas of 'blogs as labels' and puts it into practice.  While this isn't exactly a record label, this is blogs acting as the publicity department for major labels, while still maintaining free content.  The marriage of blue chip companies with the trendiness of blog culture is what Cohen and Stone are capitalizing on.  Both advertisers and labels seem to comply and since their network of blogs appeals to 240.000 daily their audience is certainly substantial.  This could be the future role of blogs in the music industry. 

In this article Miles Raymer of the Chicago Reader makes a claim that MP3 Blogs could be viable record labels.  He establishes MP3 blogs as  "curatorial" in function, performing the acts of a talent scout, and then offering the band an endorsement in the form of a good review.  He makes a note of the reader's loyalty to and trust in the blogs he or she visits.  Because blogs project a personality, it presents the illusion of a one-on-one friendship as opposed to the face-less record label.  The blog takes on the role of friend instead of a stoic music pusher.  It would only make sense, as he says, for these blogs to start signing and developing acts considering the strong brand loyalty and audience blogs would already have.

This article is a major point in my argument that blogs have transformed the music industry.  Raymer points out that Blogs are poised to replace traditional labels, since Old Media has lost out due to the tight reigns of radio and the narrow thinking of many major labels.  Blogs allow a direct appeal to the consumer under the guise of a helpful friend.  It is only a natural transition for them to become the industry norm, superseding the traditional label.  In a sense, these MP3 blogs would be acting like the all-encompasing labels of yesteryear such as Motown--finding the act, being the means of the publicity, and serving as A&R executives.

In a 2006 Rolling Stone article, it was stated that "geeks" can now make or break bands because of their tenuous hold on the "blogosphere." While these blogs often offer MP3s for readily available download (illegal), the presence of MP3 blogs "promotes progress," with their ability to critique, comment, and endorse up-and-coming artists. Moreover, the presence of blogs has made the Major labels middlemen instead of the culture dictators they once were.

This article from Wired magazine is primarily an interview of Hilary Rosen, at the time head of the RIAA and an important Washington lobbyist. However, it also showcases the tremendous consumer backlash against her and the RIAA following the Napster case. The article opens with Rosen at a debate concerning music file sharing at Oxford University, in which she is repeatedly attacked by a crowd of students. It moves to describe how she became a powerful music lobbyist, and how she handled percieved threats to the music industry. She notes that she tried to explain to the music executives how important the digital frontier was, and that ignoring it could lead to disastrous consequences. Explaining that the executives actually consider her to be too soft on these issues (apparently these execs still want to put teenagers in jail), she describes how she encouraged companies to embrace the internet and start their own online music distribution systems.

This article's description of a lobbyist is interesting, but much more fascinating is the vitriol of music consumers. They see Rosen as "the Unabomber in a pantsuit" and "the Antichrist" (the debate at the beginning devolves into simple attacks agains the industry and Rosen). All because she tried to prevent the illegal distribution of music online. The article notes that "To some extent, at least, the record companies have themselves to blame," and it's correct. The RIAA, by going after file sharing so forcefully and determinedly, created this huge backlash by its own consumer base.

What does this have to do with video game emulation? Everything. If the ESA goes after emulation in the same way as the RIAA did file sharing, it is very easy to imagine a world in which the ESA commands just as much hate as the RIAA does. So far, it seems that no video game company has really created this much ill will amongst consumers, but if the industry doesn't step carefully that could change. Think of this article as a warning. If modern video game consumers have gotten used to emulation and downloading ROMs, a significant attack by the ESA could result in a tremendous backlash.

Common access point to industrial, economic and developmental data from a variety of sources (UN, IMF, WHO, World Bank, etc.). Created by the United Nations Statistics Division.

Cherneff, Jill BR. " Dreams Are Made like This: Hortense Powdermaker and the Hollywood Film Industry." Journal of Anthropological Research. Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter 1991), pp.429-440. JSTOR. 9 Apr. 2008. <http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticle?doi=10.2307/3630352&Search=yes&term=dreams&term=hollywood&item=5&returnArticleService=showArticle&ttl=3533&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhollywood%2Bdreams;gw%3Djtx;prq%3Djeepers%2Bcreepers;Search%3DSearch;hp%3D25>.

           

            This article largely chronicles and responds to Hortense Powdermaker’s study of Hollywood culture in the late 1940s.  In the book, she wrote following her study, Powdermaker highlights the struggle between art and business and Hollywood and suggests the social underpinnings of Hollywood culture determine what types of films are made.  Powdermaker’s original contention is that the Hollywood film has had an impact on human behavior as dramatic as that of the wheel’s invention.  Powdermaker observed that the power of movies lies in it’s depiction of apparent reality—that what appears on the screen looks real and thus must accompany real values and ideas to be absorbed.  The remainder of the article focuses less on Powdermaker’s conclusions and research in order to focus on analyzing the research itself.  The author discusses the challenges facing Powdermaker in reporting on a population unlike those most anthropologists focus on.  Further, the author notices the absence of women in important roles behind the lens in Powdermaker’s research and contextualizes this historically as well as socially. 

            On a superficial level, it is interesting how Powdermaker’s journey in conducting her research mirrors that of Tod in the film The Day of the Locust.  Both leave a successful endeavor at Yale and go to Hollywood for a sociological investigation of sorts—Powdermaker an unbiased anthropological study and Tod an emotional snapshot of Hollywood’s locusts.  Some of Powdermaker’s research sheds light on the images of the industry contained in the film, such as the hierarchy of production and the social constructs behind the films. 

This article discusses the way in which the internet and digital distribution has changed consumption patterns. Strategic Marketing Departments of Record Companies are seeking information on consumer behavior in order to anticipate competitors and to "improve the supply and demand." This article contains an empirical analysis on the industry including on-line survey results that illustrate that music downloading is not the only way in which consumers are tapping into the digital environment.

UNIDO is the United Nations’ specialized industrial agency, mandated to promote industrial development and international industrial cooperation.

In this article featured in the Daily Pennsylvanian Marketing Professor Peter Fader blames downloading for the music industry's plummet. He argues that students will always steal music and that new music will always be leaked onto the internet, but that this is not responsible for the drop in sales.  In fact, it is the legal dowloading that is responsible for the decreasing album sales.

The collaborative fulfillment of consumer orders by Internet retailers and wholesalers has proven important in the realization of sustainable levels of online profitability. Concentrating on consumer direct fulfillment (or drop shipping), an empirical simulation model evaluates avenues for improving logistical performance. The empirical simulation model centers on the online music CD retailing industry. It evaluates the effects of emergency transshipments and demand dispersion on inventory and product-release performance, as well as on transportation costs, in consumer direct fulfillment operations. Results show that emergency transshipments improve inventory and product-release performances in these operations. Furthermore, the inventory-performance improvements are maximized when inventory facilities fulfill demand that is uniformly balanced across markets primarily assigned to each facility. Finally, gains in inventory and release performance obtained from emergency transshipments outweigh additional transportation costs incurred from a greater reliance on emergency transshipments for consumer direct fulfillment. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

This article alerts reader to the fact that it has already been three years in which the recording industry has put forth a great effort to persuade music lovers to pay for online songs yet still illegal downloading is widespread and the overwhelming public sentiment is one of apathy. The article says that "s consortium of 6 retailers, including Best Buy Co. and Tower Records, is investing in online service Echo Networks Inc." The music retailers are at their ultimate low and are now considering to become allies with the technology that continues to destroy them.  Many music retailers are announcing plans to get "into the online music business."

The article consider the effect of digital technology on the supply chain for music from the major record labels’ perspectives. Also the effects of piracy on the industry are discussed. The article concludes with a hope outlook for artists and audiences, but strongly asserts that the technological advancements have made it so the record companies will never fully recover or return to the era of opulence in which it reigned for so long.

 

This article discusses the way in which the internet and digital distribution has changed consumption patterns. Strategic Marketing Departments of Record Companies are seeking information on consumer behavior in order to anticipate competitors and to "improve the supply and demand." This article contains an empirical analysis on the industry including on-line survey results that illustrate that music downloading is not the only way in which consumers are tapping into the digital environment.

Music Week reveals that "the number of independent music shops and chains fell sharply in 2004." Ironically, within the same year there was a 63% increase in the number of supermarkets selling music. The closing of independent and chain music stores has encouraged non-music retailers, to experiment with the selling CD's in the UK and US. In the states Walmart accounts for about one-fifth of CD's sold across the nation.

This article discusses the ways in which record companies are compensating for their losses through marketing.  After the Sony/BMG merge, Columbia Record Executive Charlie Walk, leads the way.  He asserts his belief that for the majors to stay in on the game they need to legitimize the online music downloading space and create alliances with consumer-goods companies to make a profit where it is being lost. Thus downloading has changed artist marketing too.

Although the record companies have suffered great economic loss as a result of widespread downloading, they have been able to survive the drastic changes that the industry is undergoing right now.  However the same cannot be said of the traditional music retailer, the majority of which have had to declare banckruptcy or have had to close a number of branch locations.  The article estimates percentages of sales that will account for the future shift from physical to digital distribution in the next several years.

Mark Katz discusses how technology has served to preserve music while also serving as a "catalyst." Katz addresses how the innovation of the internet affected and continues to still affect the industry. He cites a series of case studies, that correlate the new ways of finding and listening to new music and the rising of new music genres to recording technology.

Written by two professors at the Penn in March of this past year addressing how the music industry's revenue has drastically dropped within the past three years. Many argue that this decline in profits is due to file sharing. They obtained data concerning album sales via purchase and downloading as well as consumer valuations from college students. They offer a new estimate of sales displacement caused by downloading.

This paper explores the online or digital distribution of music "as a technology practice" and suggests that this new phenomenon reinforces the "loose integration" of the entertainment industry. Also the paper gives a business background about recording industry conglomerates, ownership infrastructure and the gate-keepers for the global markets.

This article considers the impact of technology and downloading on the "supply chain" of music. It describes economics of the global music market and the super-power five major record that dominate the entire sound recording industry. It has a positive take on the future for artists and consumers alike, despite the present turmoil.

This work seeks to predict the impact of government regulation, in terms of new policy and programs, upon the music field for the future. It raises some ethical questions concerning the direction of technology and tries to account for how technological advancements will influence the national and global economy. The central issue around which the whole work is concerned is the commerce of music.

This book depicts authorship and copyright as a sociologist would, delving in to the mass culture debate. He grapples with the present phenomenon of bootlegging in mainstream music. This book is known for being the first "academic treatment" of the matter and Lee sets out to correlate Romanticism and capitalism in the act.

In this book the Music Research Institute at Berklee College of Music presents a manifesto for the the still unfolding music revolution. While record companies suffer tremendous losses, music is still being made and artists are as prolific as ever. However what has changed is th methods by which the music is being distributed to the masses.  This book discusses the non-traditional methods of CD distribution that are dominating at the present time. 

This article critiques the "crisis of reproduction" that confronted the music industry starting in the late 1990's. It explores some of the ways in which the industry is going about re-working its structure to compensate for its losses.  Also discusses the roles of the big four- AOL-Time Warner, Sony/BMG, Universal and EMI in the reorganization.