What did we learn here?

That the courtroom oath no longer means SHIT! Did you read the evidence? The woman used the same name for her MySpace account, to get dates on Match.com… Talk about GUILTY!

But we know people trade files P2P. What the fuck are we gonna DO ABOUT IT?

According to the RIAA, we should all just cease and desist. After we stop smoking dope and having unprotected sex. Yes, just say no.

Give me a break.

You’re a fifteen year old. You’ve heard about this old band from the seventies, from before you were born, when your PARENTS were in high school. You could wait to hear "Stairway To Heaven" on the radio, maybe even "Kashmir" and "Whole Lotta Love", but you want MORE Zeppelin. You want to start with "IV", work your way back to "II", and then go to "Physical Graffiti" and "Houses Of The Holy", never mind the debut. Yup, why don’t you plunk down A HUNDRED BUCKS!

But how are you going to afford Cold Stone? The movies? Video games?

You must give those up. Music is competing for the entertainment dollar and you’ve got to make a choice. Either have a well-rounded life or listen to music, it’s your decision, this is the way it’s got to be, because the rights holders SAY SO!

Now if I rang up Robert or Jimmy and asked them… Do you want a few rich teenagers paying a hundred bucks plus for your catalog or MILLIONS paying a lot less, what do you think they’d say?

Well, they’d say this Ahmet Ertegun tribute is really a soft launch for their tour. They’re going to go out on the road and rape and pillage…why do you think they’re PRACTICING SO HARD! And they don’t want to play arenas, but STADIUMS, like in the old days, and they want to FILL THESE BUILDINGS! And the old farts will pay a lot to sit up close, but they won’t pay a fortune to sit in the bleachers. But these kids, they’ll be thrilled just to BE INSIDE!

Do you get it yet? That it’s not about the rights holders, but MUSIC! That the RIAA companies have music locked up, they want to charge a fortune for it, and therefore most people can’t afford it. And that there’s an easier way out, monetizing the present behavior…having everybody be a music customer, resulting in at least as much revenue, and a healthy scene, great live gate, tons of merch sales.

Who’s gonna follow Neil Young? Who’s gonna follow Paul McCartney, the Stones and the Eagles? Where are the next ARENA bands, never mind stadium acts. The only way we can build these bands is by getting the music in people’s hands. And last I checked, ten dollars from a million people is no different from one dollar from ten million people. It’s just that now, A FUCK OF A LOT MORE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT YOU, A FUCK OF A LOT MORE ARE FANS!

Couldn’t happen in the old days. The costs were too high and you couldn’t reach people easily. But the Net has broken down these barriers. Let me ask you, in what ways have the RIAA companies embraced the Net?

iTunes is worse than CDs. The sound quality sucks and the price is the same. Where’s the innovation? Where’s the BUILDING of the business. The assholes are so busy trying to MAINTAIN what they’ve got that they can’t see the virgin landscape open for the taking, the vast resources that can be used to promote music to what it once was, the hippest artistic medium on the planet, as opposed to the inbred cousin no one wants anything to do with.

This is a business built on bullying and intimidation. And it’s no surprise the RIAA’s legal strategy reflects this. And those days are through. Transparency rules. It’s not about paying radio off and cheating acts on royalties, it’s about making the music available to hear on the Web and transparent accounting. The industry’s worst nightmare.

So they convicted a guilty woman and penalized her an amount she’ll never be able to pay.

Their hands were tied. How else could they get everybody else to settle for a few thousand. Huh? Is this strategy WORKING? Cara Duckworth of the RIAA said "We lose money on our litigation program." Okay, if you lose money there, and you’re losing CD sales, WHERE ARE YOU WINNING? What’s the strategy to turn things around? NOWHERE IN EVIDENCE!

People want a lot of music for a low price. The labels don’t offer this. Except as evaporating subscriptions with low tech devices that make iPods look like hand-held human transporters. It’s like trying to get people to give up their BMWs by offering them Kias. Sure, Kias might get better gas mileage, BUT DO YOU WANT TO DRIVE ONE?

The labels are making music free. The lawsuits not only lose money, they’re not reducing file-trading. All they’re doing is scaring off people who don’t buy music ANYWAY!

If this is a victory, then I don’t understand the game.

This is a flawed strategy exercised to make non tech-savvy label heads feel good as they drink expensive wine and worry about their eight digit payouts. This is like TV networks not being on the satellite. Huh? Eventually the networks merged with the cable stations. Everybody made more money. The labels have to embrace the Internet, or else go extinct. Which, they’re doing a good job of. As far as getting acts to cough up their touring and merch revenue, they’re lucky to get good acts to sign with them AT ALL! You tell me what to record, you can’t get me on the radio, you don’t pay me and you won’t let me leave. This is an enticing business proposition?

As for the public… The RIAA lost people’s hearts and minds a long time ago. It happened when people discovered the original Napster and then got iPods. They all said WOW, THIS IS GREAT! How come the labels can’t understand this? A buck a track? That’s like $4,000 for a PC. But now they’re five hundred bucks at Wal-Mart and everybody has one. Which business model do you want to employ? A few at a high price or many for very little? Do you want EVERYBODY listening to music or only the privileged, dedicated few. Think about it. And then figure out how to monetize the stealing, how to give the people what they want. ISN’T THAT THE ESSENCE OF BUSINESS?