The Internet has everything, it seems; of course, there's plenty of history among the billions of Web pages out there - but there are also clear signs of the future.

First the future. Some music distribution services seemingly have come to the (apparently correct) conclusion that no matter how many software routines they put in MP3 files to prevent them from being copied, and no matter how many people they try to sue for sharing illegally downloaded music files, they are basically trying to hold back a tidal wave by sticking their fingers into a very holey dike.

So at least one company - EMI, which, among other properties, has in its copyrighted music the Beatles catalog - has signed licensing deals with several P2P (peer-to-peer) music downloading services, including Mashboxx (http://www.mashboxx.com/newrelease.html) and Qtrax (http://www.qtrax.com). At least one, Qtrax, will be supported by ads and allow at least some free, unrestricted downloads. Both these services are pending, while EMI prepares its electronic catalog for distribution.

If you read Chinese, you don't have to wait for either of these services to begin operating, though. A Chinese site called Baidu (http://www.baidu.com) has all the commercially released music you could possibly want, from all the major labels, freely available for download - and it's all legal, according to a Chinese court that ruled for the company against the eight largest music distributors in the world (http://tinyurl.com/2x4s5y). You've probably never heard of Baidu, but the site, called the "Chinese Google," is the fourth most popular site in the world.

Seen from that perspective, EMI's decision isn't "forward looking" or "radical" as looking for a new financial model really is their only option.

The Chinese court said the Baidu site could not be held responsible for its use by individuals to download copyrighted content, a decision that basically means that, if the major music labels want to halt piracy in China (a country notorious for piracy), they are going to have to sue a few hundred million Chinese. Trying to figure out other ways to make money off your assets seems like a lot better way to spend your time and talent that sicking lawyers on all and sundry who violate your copyrights.

Next in line to learn this lesson were the TV networks in the US.

The "copyright line" for television programs has always been less clear than for music, which you had to go to a store to purchase if you wanted a hi-fidelity copy. Since the invention of the video recorder, however, the same (or close enough) quality video presentation has been available for free to viewers who watch when their favorite show is on air, as it is to those who recorded their program to watch later or to archive. The free-to-air networks (CBS, NBC etc.) already essentially "give away" their creations for free use by the consumer, and support the practice with advertising. Looking at it from this perspective, sharing TV programs in digital file form - which one could have watched or recorded for free anyway - is not as major an issue as downloading copyrighted music. The question of "free" sharing is a little less relevant to cable TV, which you have to pay money to view - but with cable so ubiquitous, and most people interested in getting a digital file of cable programming already a subscriber anyway, that point is almost moot. Or so goes the thinking among many who write me about this issue.

Continued
1 | 2 | Next »