The writing has been on the wall, the floor, the ceiling and all over the Internet for a long time now regarding "traditional" music companies. The simple reality is that, historically, music distributors have provided services that were extremely valuable to artists. Distribution, obviously, is the big service that was far beyond the abilities of most artists, even if they actually wanted to handle it themselves. Promotion, if it cost large amounts of money, might also have been too much for most artists to handle themselves, at least in the early stages of their careers.
Fast forward to today. The Internet is not just a good way to distribute music, it is rapidly becoming the only way. Faced with the option to dragging our lazy butts down to the local Future Shop to purchase a CD or to just fire up iTunes or a software sharing application and getting it now (and possibly illegally), the choice seems obvious. Add to this, music companies' historic power over the entire sales process—a power that often enticed them to force consumers to buy what they didn't want (entire albums) instead of just what they were after (thank you iTunes!)—and consumers have two more reasons to buy (or steal) online: getting exactly what they want and sticking it to the companies that have (in their minds) abused them for so long.
So, as anyone with eyes and an interest has observed, record companies are taking a kicking financially. They also seem to be in panic mode with law suits against "pirates" and gouging artists on electronic sales royalties. These ill-fated tactics are just making their previous customers angrier.
And it's not amusing the artists either; now the real catastrophe has started: big name acts are starting to walk away from the traditional system.
The simple reality is that today's artists need very little help from anyone to get their music to fans. Building awareness is also much easier than ever before. Even the process of producing music in the first place has become much cheaper and nearly anyone with a few grand and some talent can probably create a fairly saleable product. There is just less and less need for the big record companies and this—quite understandably—scares them.
So what is the "solution" for the heavily invested middle men in this shakeout? Music companies need to reinvent and reinvest quickly if they want to save any of their equity. Short of moving their investment into other markets, music companies need to recognize that the salad days of total control are gone and start listening to what artists need and consumers want. There is clearly still opportunity to make money in the music industry: iTunes and Live Nation are showing that. But business as usual or law suits against music consumers is a sure recipe for bankruptcy.
Music piracy probably is quite illegal but when a huge proportion of society is doing it almost daily, it is nearsightedness bordering on delusion to think that the law is going to save you.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Lawyer nomads?
I just came across a site run by and for people who do the ultimate telecommute, selling all their possessions and heading out on long-term travel, all while working. I'm quite intrigued. Years ago I knew someone who spent short stints working as a professional in various US cities. There was demand in her profession for short-term contracts and her skills were 100% transferrable (she is an occupational therapist) so she went to a head-hunter who found jobs for her all over America. Nice.
The wandering professionals described in the site above take this a bit further, taking their show on the road for years at a time and practising their crafts via laptop and Internet. With that flexibility one can head virtually anywhere and survive on much less money.
Hmm... How can I wrangle such a lifestyle while involved in the legal field? I have 2 years to figure it out.
The wandering professionals described in the site above take this a bit further, taking their show on the road for years at a time and practising their crafts via laptop and Internet. With that flexibility one can head virtually anywhere and survive on much less money.
Hmm... How can I wrangle such a lifestyle while involved in the legal field? I have 2 years to figure it out.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Love, Lawyers and Wisdom from the Internet
I was just looking up a quote at the IMDB and once again remarked on the wonder that is humanity. It works like this: Humans have dominated this planet (in some ways) because of their big brains. First an individual might be smarter than a predator or prey and be able to evade or capture said predator or prey. That's evolutionarily useful but won't turn one into a planetary emperor too quickly. But then comes language and suddenly all the knowledge that an individual accumulates can be passed on to his or her tribe mates. Now that tribe has a ton more knowledge and is really good at capturing and evading. Next comes writing and now humans are able to acquire knowledge from people they never meet or even from dead people. That's a good trick! The printing press takes this a bit further by mass producing writing and making it more likely that any given human can get access to information discovered by others.
But physical distribution of writing has obvious limitations, so we invented the Internet. Now we are taking information from people all over the world, concentrating it in organized, discrete repositories, and giving instant access to it everywhere the Internet reaches (which becomes further daily). Soon there will be few places on the planet where all information is not available 24/7. When that happens, watch out predators! We'll know where your blind spots are and how to survive your most deadly poisonous attacks.
So far people don't seem to be using this new reality to solve their legal problems themselves too much (thankfully for me!) but surely it's just a matter of time. Movements like the Plain English Campaign are necessary first, so the average Jane can wade through legal information and then we will need good, lay-person primers on various subjects. But these things are coming already. I guess I had better get fat off the corporate teat quickly before lawyers' salaries start nose-diving as society reassesses our remuneration. :-/
Oh, the quote I was looking for, by the way, was from St. Elmo's Fire: "Love, love, you know what love is? Love is an illusion created by lawyer types like yourself to perpetuate another illusion called marriage to create the reality of divorce and then the illusionary need for divorce lawyers."
But physical distribution of writing has obvious limitations, so we invented the Internet. Now we are taking information from people all over the world, concentrating it in organized, discrete repositories, and giving instant access to it everywhere the Internet reaches (which becomes further daily). Soon there will be few places on the planet where all information is not available 24/7. When that happens, watch out predators! We'll know where your blind spots are and how to survive your most deadly poisonous attacks.
So far people don't seem to be using this new reality to solve their legal problems themselves too much (thankfully for me!) but surely it's just a matter of time. Movements like the Plain English Campaign are necessary first, so the average Jane can wade through legal information and then we will need good, lay-person primers on various subjects. But these things are coming already. I guess I had better get fat off the corporate teat quickly before lawyers' salaries start nose-diving as society reassesses our remuneration. :-/
Oh, the quote I was looking for, by the way, was from St. Elmo's Fire: "Love, love, you know what love is? Love is an illusion created by lawyer types like yourself to perpetuate another illusion called marriage to create the reality of divorce and then the illusionary need for divorce lawyers."
ID theft in post privacy society
Recent generations' adoption of the Internet as a social tool has sharply reduced the amount of privacy they have. To people who remember "the way it used to be" this seems like an obvious problem. To them, privacy = good, publicizing personal information = bad. Identity theft, many people believe, is only one easily identifiable problem with decreased privacy. The solution many (most?) people offer is to use "best practices" and not reveal anything online. Shred your documents! Don't post your phone number! Etc.
However, this is a mistake. Identity theft is not possible just because personal information is available online; it is possible because historically that information was so expensive to get that society and industry allowed a ludicrously insecure identity management infrastructure to come into existence. We now suffer under that same stupid system even though the world has changed drastically regarding availability of personal information.
First, let's not be naive: personal privacy has not been eroded just because technology has run amok and modern Internet users have no idea how to protect themselves. Personal privacy has been eroded because modern Internet users don't care as much about it as past generations might have. Today I saw a photo on Facebook of two fellow law students, both females, necking on a dance floor. This is common enough that they probably don't care. Other law students—people who have good reason to worry about future reputations—routinely post or have posted more embarrassing photos or profanities or whatever. It is becoming accepted that indiscretions become public-ish these days and people seem to care less about them. Presumably these personal tidbits are becoming less dangerous as a result. (i.e. It's hard to fire someone because she was photographed kissing another woman when 37% of your female staff has been photographed similarly.)
Now, given that personal privacy is just less important to modern Internet users and is likely to become less so still, why is the "solution" to ID theft to "lock up your valuables"? This ignores the other half of the problem: ID theft is possible because we care less about privacy and because credit reporting agencies, lenders and other institutions that wield power over us are willing to accept ridiculously flimsy "evidence" as "proof" of identity. If we as a society want to worry less about privacy, it is time for us to demand that the ways we manage our identities improve. The solution to identity theft is not to tell modern Internet users to stop behaving the way they want to. It is to tell industry and government to smarten up and implement the obvious and relatively simple policies needed to prevent it.
For example, in Canada credit reporting agencies are required by law to provide consumers with "free" access to their credit report once per calendar year. The quotes are around "free" because credit reporting agencies follow this law to the letter—providing one free report by Canada Post, after submission of a written application form with photocopies of 2 pieces of ID. Please allow 5 to 10 business days. Or, if you want it right now, just enter your information and credit card number, pay $15 and get it right away. Yes, both credit reporting agencies in Canada have already set up the technology to instantly provide credit reports to consumers but will only do so if you pay. If you just demand your legal right to a free copy (once per year), they will force you to go through the hassle of photocopying, using Canada Post and waiting 5 to 10 days. It would actually be cheaper for them (from a straight cost perspective) to just use their existing fee-based system to send you your one free report per year. But if they inconvenience you by making you go through Canada Post, they obviously assume you will break down and just pay the $15.
Imagine a different system, where credit reporting agencies were required by law to give consumers their own credit reports for free whenever they asked. Better yet, imagine if they implemented systems where consumers had to authorize each request for a credit report. How then would anyone apply for a credit card in my name? It's a simple solution that should completely negate the "danger" of Internet phishers discovering my SIN or address. But to imagine such a system is to imagine a lost source of revenue for Equifax and Trans-Union so don't expect it any time soon—unless you're willing to wake up and demand it.
However, this is a mistake. Identity theft is not possible just because personal information is available online; it is possible because historically that information was so expensive to get that society and industry allowed a ludicrously insecure identity management infrastructure to come into existence. We now suffer under that same stupid system even though the world has changed drastically regarding availability of personal information.
First, let's not be naive: personal privacy has not been eroded just because technology has run amok and modern Internet users have no idea how to protect themselves. Personal privacy has been eroded because modern Internet users don't care as much about it as past generations might have. Today I saw a photo on Facebook of two fellow law students, both females, necking on a dance floor. This is common enough that they probably don't care. Other law students—people who have good reason to worry about future reputations—routinely post or have posted more embarrassing photos or profanities or whatever. It is becoming accepted that indiscretions become public-ish these days and people seem to care less about them. Presumably these personal tidbits are becoming less dangerous as a result. (i.e. It's hard to fire someone because she was photographed kissing another woman when 37% of your female staff has been photographed similarly.)
Now, given that personal privacy is just less important to modern Internet users and is likely to become less so still, why is the "solution" to ID theft to "lock up your valuables"? This ignores the other half of the problem: ID theft is possible because we care less about privacy and because credit reporting agencies, lenders and other institutions that wield power over us are willing to accept ridiculously flimsy "evidence" as "proof" of identity. If we as a society want to worry less about privacy, it is time for us to demand that the ways we manage our identities improve. The solution to identity theft is not to tell modern Internet users to stop behaving the way they want to. It is to tell industry and government to smarten up and implement the obvious and relatively simple policies needed to prevent it.
For example, in Canada credit reporting agencies are required by law to provide consumers with "free" access to their credit report once per calendar year. The quotes are around "free" because credit reporting agencies follow this law to the letter—providing one free report by Canada Post, after submission of a written application form with photocopies of 2 pieces of ID. Please allow 5 to 10 business days. Or, if you want it right now, just enter your information and credit card number, pay $15 and get it right away. Yes, both credit reporting agencies in Canada have already set up the technology to instantly provide credit reports to consumers but will only do so if you pay. If you just demand your legal right to a free copy (once per year), they will force you to go through the hassle of photocopying, using Canada Post and waiting 5 to 10 days. It would actually be cheaper for them (from a straight cost perspective) to just use their existing fee-based system to send you your one free report per year. But if they inconvenience you by making you go through Canada Post, they obviously assume you will break down and just pay the $15.
Imagine a different system, where credit reporting agencies were required by law to give consumers their own credit reports for free whenever they asked. Better yet, imagine if they implemented systems where consumers had to authorize each request for a credit report. How then would anyone apply for a credit card in my name? It's a simple solution that should completely negate the "danger" of Internet phishers discovering my SIN or address. But to imagine such a system is to imagine a lost source of revenue for Equifax and Trans-Union so don't expect it any time soon—unless you're willing to wake up and demand it.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Safari 3 Hijinks
I finally decided to revive this blog because I have a new project that might add something useful to the general chatter on the 'net and I've discovered that Safari beta 3.02 doesn't want to allow me to enter any text in Blogger's "Title" field. Very irritating. In general I'm quite happy that Apple released the Safari 3 beta because I was getting tired of lagging so far behind Firefox. Hopefully this is a bug they'll work out soon.
Update: I discovered that the "Title" field just isn't clickable — I was able to select it by using the tab key to shift focus until I got there. Irritating!
Update: I discovered that the "Title" field just isn't clickable — I was able to select it by using the tab key to shift focus until I got there. Irritating!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
When dogs fly
On Monday the 11th I sent my dog, Varley, on the first flight of his 9 years. I really didn't want to but Air Canada and WestJet are so monumentally difficult with their restrictions on animals flying over Christmas that WestJet cargo was nearly the only game in town. Air Canada cargo could have taken him later so he could have stayed with me this week but it would have cost $750 one way. Yes, that is double what Air Canada charges me one way and he is about a third the weight my suitcases and I are! Air Canada has seen the last of my dollars.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
The UVic difference
One of the selling points of UVic Law is that the school does not produce class rankings and strives to create a, "supportive learning environment. Students are encouraged and challenged to excel, but to compete only against themselves." What does this really mean though? The fact remains that UVic Law subscribes to the same grading scheme that all other Canadian law schools do, strictly limiting the number of A-level grades they award. Since most of us at law school are used to getting A grades and most of us are competitive (I think), this poses a bit of a problem. Also, getting a job often depends on getting good marks, whether UVic produces rankings or not.
I can't say whether it's more or less likely that a UVic law student will give another one a helping hand. I can say, though, that during exam time, some people do refuse to share their class outlines / cheat sheets. This might be just because if they put work into it they feel it's fundamentally unjust forme slackers who don't do any work to get a "free ride". Or, it might just be that when the chips are down, some people don't want their classmates to have the same chance they do for good grades.
That's not to say there aren't some generous people here. I won't name names, but I've had 3 people email me info from their outlines for this year (and the student body maintains a list of outlines from past years). Still, I think UVic Law would be really different if they had a truly communal study prep mentality. Just a thought.
I can't say whether it's more or less likely that a UVic law student will give another one a helping hand. I can say, though, that during exam time, some people do refuse to share their class outlines / cheat sheets. This might be just because if they put work into it they feel it's fundamentally unjust for
That's not to say there aren't some generous people here. I won't name names, but I've had 3 people email me info from their outlines for this year (and the student body maintains a list of outlines from past years). Still, I think UVic Law would be really different if they had a truly communal study prep mentality. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
