... a lot of conversations recently about ad-supported models.
Bainwol: Now there is additional legal clarity.
Do you have any regrets about filing so many lawsuits?
Sherman: That we had to do it at all. It arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse.
Bainwol: You make it clear that there are risks.
How useful has the NET Act, which makes not-for-profit copyright infringement a federal crime, been?
Sherman: Did it have an impact? Sure. Anything that increases risk would have an impact. The only thing that has an impact is: "What does it matter for me?" When we've done surveys, the lawsuits are the No. 1 or No. 2 reason for why people have changed their behaviour.
What new laws are you lobbying for to help you?
Bainwol: You've got this conversation going on in terms of platform and prices. The iPod has dominated. We're in an MP3 player world. (That's why we see digital radio receivers that record as a threat.)
I wrote about the RIAA's appearance before a Senate hearing earlier this year on an "audio broadcast flag" for digital receivers that are able to broadcasts from HD radio and satellite radio. What exactly would you like Congress to do?
Sherman: Legislative parity in the Senate that would harmonise (licensing rates) and content protection requirements. It doesn't make any sense that Webcasters who are in competition with satellite pay more and have more obligations. They should be harmonised.
They're basically licensed to do a public performance. They are filling up an iPod equivalent with free music. It stays on your device for as long as you're a subscriber.
Do you actually need to make certain receivers illegal to manufacture, which is the path being taken by Senator Ted Stevens' proposal or Representative Mike Ferguson's bill?
Sherman: It isn't a matter of making it legal or illegal. The preferred approach would be to make this a licensing matter.
Any kind of traditional copying would be fine. Just don't create a library like an iTunes library.
How are you going to deal with open source programmers who release code that simply ignores a broadcast flag? I'm thinking of applications like GNU Radio.
Sherman: We've long accepted the notion that you're not going to have a pirate-proof system. The idea is to leave that to the hacking community. Most people want to get it legitimately.
A few years ago, there were all sorts of proposals to ban, regulate, or otherwise restrict digital rights management. Now hundreds of millions of people happily use a DRM-equipped iTunes. Is the debate over?
Bainwol: The world at large is not aware of DRM as an issue. Nobody feels any real problem with it.
Sherman: It's the ideologues who are focused on it. There's a great article by Jim DeLong that asks how you think there should be rallies outside supermarkets using technology preventing you from taking away shopping carts. (Editors' note: DeLong is an analyst at the Progress and Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C., who supports stronger intellectual property rights.)
Could the DRM debate flare up again because of public missteps like Sony's rootkit-enabled CDs?
Sherman: DRM has just gotten a bad rap based on this notion that it's going to restrict consumer choice.
Bainwol: It's a proxy for an almost ideological fight on fair use.
Sherman: The fight over DRM will almost fade away as business models (become more flexible).
Talkback
Right. Basically the RIAA (and similiair parties like the BSA, etc, etc) wants to see things happen their way. Logical ofcourse. The problem however is that their focus is mainly on total control without giving that much in return (rather less if you actually understand the issues in question). Take DRM for example. That's a whole lot of restrictions designed to let you pay (often again) for something you already have. With such an attitude the RIAA (and others) are only setting up a large part of the consumer party to completely and totally turn their back on the RIAA (and others) as soon as the first possibility to do that pops up that they're aware of. Given history lessons that's bound to happen one day. In short, RIAA (and others) is a dead end and those supporting it will feel the aftermath. That's the beauty of Internet, lots of historical background information available that can haunt bad decisions in the past for decades to come. iPod is only one example as to how bad the average consumer is actually informed. What RIAA (and others) need to swallow is very plain and simple indeed: as long as overcharging and underserving (customer needs) is the goal people will rebel (which is a definite clear signal that ones market strategy isn't exactly in line with reality) and they wil jump ship permanently as soon as they can. Ofcourse the idiot (short-term) response to that is ultimate market control and lobbying politicians 24/7 but that'll get you nowhere in the end. Even if one succeeds in controliing the Western world it'll be only a matter of time until non-Western countries or unions will find ways to make a huge profit out of that extortion.
In short, find ways to deal with corporate greed of learn your children to speak Chinese (or whatever non-Western).
Yes, a bit black and white but maybe it'll turn a light bulb on here and there. Real responsible decision makers look further then just four years (or less) ahead.