Response from: Marc Freedman, RazorPop

Bert, thank you for your opinion. I'd be happy to discuss this with you here if you would respond to the ethics link in the article. As that article concludes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Response from: Bert Zamichow

Marc, yes yes, two wrongs don't make a right. But how can anyone say that a copyright holder taking measures to make sure it is as difficult as possible for people to STEAL his/her works, whether music, video, software, etc, is commiting a "wrong"? What in the world is wrong with that? Its not easy to walk into Best Buy and steal a dozen cds or dvds. It shouldn't be easy on the internet. Period. End of discussion. Until p2p networks make DRAMATIC efforts to self-regulate and prevent the transmission of unauthorized content, Loudeye and everyone else's activities will be untouchable. Ethically, morally, legally, they have the highground. Very little grey area here. And if I may respond to your quote,
"No alternative is offered to the user. The entertainment industry punishes the user with a fake file but doesn't provide an authorized file. The only practical option for the user is to try to download other illegitimate versions of the file or to migrate to other or more secure P2P networks that do not contain bogus files." Sweet Lord, you are so off base. First of all, the alternatives are so plentiful and so well known (I-Tunes, Napster, Rhapsody, MSN Music, Wal-Mart, MusicNow, Buymusic.com, Yahoo Launch, Sony Connect...need I continue?). Second, one of the KEY aspects of Loudeye's activities is that they can be used to direct users to such legit sites where users can actually pay the people who created the music and movies they so love to enjoy. "the Overpeer Customer Acquisition services allow content owners and retail partners to leverage precision targeted consumer demand to facilitate legitimate purchases and offers"
http://www.loudeye.com/en/contentprotection/acquisition.asp
You need to do more research before you rant and rave.

Response from: Bert Zamichow

Marc, Not an Overpeer rep, just a believer in the future of digital media (legal, that is), and a fan of Loudeye's mission. "If someone wants to protect their product and secure it to prevent theft, they have every right to do so." Hey, you made my argument for me in your first paragraph. Don't compare a physical medium to a digital medium. Selling cds on the street and spreading billions and billions of dollars worth of music around for FREE is not even the same thing. Not the same ballpark. Not the same league. Not the same sport. Laws have been slow to catch up to the digital age. Waiting for the government to step in and effectively crack down on p2p theft is like waiting to go broke. Content owners must take active steps to prevent theft by other means. Lets face it. Because it's completely unregulated, downloading ANYTHING over a p2p involves an element of risk. You don't know who you're downloading from and the file you so willingly except could contain any number of poisons. You make it seem like Loudeye bombards the user with viruses, torching the hard drives of those who dare to try and download their protected content. Please. A couple pop-ups whose purpose is merely to encourage you towards a legal alternative is hardly worthy of such a scary term as 'vigilantism'. I would love to see you point to any specific law, anything, that says anything, about how anything Overpeer does is in any way illegal. If you find one, you might want to point it out to the boys over at Kazaa et al. They'd probably love to know considering Overpeer and the likes have been operating for YEARS now, and they're going to continue to rape the end-user experience of those trying to commit CRIMES for years to come. Show me a judge who has a problem with that, and I'll show you a senile judge. Its far more baffling that content owners have no legal recourse against networks where 90% of the available content is copyrighted material and is not being paid for. As for your final comment, Oh Lordy. Must I spell it out for you. When a user buys a CD, he B-U-Y-S a CD. He S-P-E-N-D-S M-O-N-E-Y. D-O Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D? He pays the artist, the producer, the songwriters, the advertising and marketing men. He pays for the studio time, for the instruments it took to make the music. He pays for all the work that went into making the product he receives so much enjoyment from. Thats what all this boils down to. Where do you think music comes from, Marc? You do understand that it can be VERY VERY expensive to a) learn to be a great musician and b) record amazing music. I can't comprehend how anyone (except a communist) could truly believe that its perfectly fine for people to steal intellectual property on such a grand scale as that which occurs on the p2p networks. Do you truly believe that the free trade of copyrighted music, video, software, etc., should be allowed to continue unfettered? If so, then this will certainly be my last response, because our views are far too incompatible. But if not, how exactly do YOU suggest copyright owners protect themselves from theft over p2p?

Response from: Marc Freedman, RazorPop

Bert, Re: ‘"If someone wants to protect their product and secure it to prevent theft, they have every right to do so." Hey, you made my argument for me in your first paragraph.’ … Not exactly. Clearly they have right to take LEGAL means. This is the basis of the whole discussion, that interdiction is illegal. You’re right that a physical medium is not directly comparable to a digital one. If I steal a CD or buy a counterfeit CD, there is a strong argument that I’ve deprived the legitimate CD distributor of money. That argument is not valid in the digital domain. It is not clear that P2P deprives the music industry of money. Some P2P users will not buy a CD if they download a P2P tune. Others buy a CD precisely because they previewed music and liked it or found a new artist over P2P. The academic studies are mixed on this. You say ‘content owners have no legal recourse.’ That is absurd. It’s hard to miss the daily flurry of lawsuits against users, as well as the case against P2P developers now at the Supreme Court. As far as the law, just because the law hasn’t caught up to the digital age is not a license to take the law into your own hands. You write ‘I would love to see you point to any specific law’. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve already done that. I list multiple legal causes of actions in my paper on vigilantism above, which you have yet to address. As to dealing with the issue, there are plenty of options for the entertainment industry, such as distributing secured content and compulsory licensing. The one I favor is simple. It’s called the free market. All they need is real marketing. People consume based on availability, timeliness, convenience, quality, editorial, and branding. The labels demean their product when they consider a low quality naked MP3 obtained via P2P, a painful experience, as directly competitive with what they offer. That’s like saying Perrier is the same as tap water.