Expert help sites

A year ago I wrote about expert help sites. It's time to take another look:

• Allexperts.com, the oldest and largest free Q&A service on the Internet. Ratings help you find the right expert.

• Askearth, a site created "so that people could be paid to give good-quality, in-depth answers to the really tough questions about life, business, technology and hundreds of other subjects." Post a question and indicate how much you're willing to pay for the answer. Then the service's experts send you their answers.

• The Abuzz knowledge network from the NY Times Digital. 60% of questions are answered in 4 hours and only 10% are never answered. One reviewer said they have the smartest experts and most active community.

• Google Answers: Google's expert site originally leveraged its wide user base but now relies on 500 paid experts.

• Keen.com: SF site offers advice over the phone for a fee.

• Expertcentral.com uses thousands of volunteer experts.

• Quickcomputerhelp.com and GeekHelp are different brands of the same service. Two free minutes and $2.79/minute after that. Call (toll-free) 888-733-2463. No membership needed, unlike Speak With a Geek, which requires a monthly or yearly membership.

Looks like many other expert sites have imploded or left the consumer end of the business. Here's a roll call of sites that were once on my list and now appear to be out of commission: Askme.com has turned into a company that manages employee knowledge networks; Expertcity.com has gone corporate; Yahoo Advice replaced Yahoo Experts, then was farmed out to Liveadvice, which itself has gone belly up and now forwards visitors to Keen.com; Sevant.com made computer house calls in the SF Bay Area; Aveo.com was a guide to explaining error messages, and more; Exp.com was an experts site out of Menlo Park, Calif.; Ask-a-tech.org was a site that let users submit questions and wait for responses from online experts; Epeople.com has gone corporate; Inforocket.com went kaput and forwards visitors to Keen.com.

One reason for the collapse of most expert-help sites may be the proliferation of weblogs. I can think of a dozen times where I've posted a query on my blog and received an answer without having to fork over any dough on the expert advice sites.

Don't know if readers have used any of the above sites, but if so and you'd like to share your experience, post it here.

Tracking the candidates' latest moves

Gary Price has a new item on his Resource Shelf about a new service offered by Factiva that should be of interest to journalists:

Factiva Offers (Free) "Media Visibility Index" for High-Profile California Candidates

This is a new index that might be of interest to the many members of the media who read ResourceShelf. Access to the index is available by sending contact info to the person listed in the news release or via Business Newswire. Here are a few details:

* "...a new media visibility metric, the Factiva Index. The index provides a quantitative snapshot of the media's most widely covered people, places, events or companies within a given time frame."

* The Factiva Index launches with weekly updates tracking the print media visibility of 10 candidates in the California recall election. Each week, the Factiva Index will provide a ranking and a brief explanation of the election's high-profile candidates - including Cruz Bustamante, Gary Coleman, Mary "Mary Carey" Cook, Gray Davis, Larry Flynt, Leo Gallagher, Arianna Huffington, Tom McClintock, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Peter Ueberroth - based on individual and collective mentions in the national and local print media. The first update covers the individual candidates' national and local print media mentions during all of August.

* Future Factiva Index topics will include a monthly snapshot of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, with the first installment on October 21, 2003.

CNN relaunches Anderson Cooper

The St. Petersburg Times' TV critic takes a look at Anderson Cooper 360, half of a much-anticipated reconfiguring of CNN's early evening programming. Thanks to IWantMedia for the pointer.

A cable TV network about celebs

Thanks to IWantMedia for this pointer to the Miami Herald: American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer and other tabloids, is planning to create a cable TV network about celebrities.

Thank God someone is stepping up to fill the celebrity gap on TV.

Petition to stop the FCC

Those concerned by a few big companies controlling citizens' access to news, information and entertainment joined in opposition to the FCC rule change earlier this summer that paved the way for greater media consolidation.

More than 2 million Americans wrote the FCC to oppose the change, but the FCC pushed through the rule change anyway, in a 3-2 party line vote. In July, the House struck down one part of the rule change by a 400-21 vote.

In August, media companies launched a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign, using distorted polls and misleading advertising to twist the arms of members of the Senate. Now, in the next week, the final vote on rolling back the FCC rule change will come to the Senate floor.

The vote will be close. On Wednesday, MoveOn.org will be holding a crucial press conference with Senator Dorgan (D-ND) and Senator Snowe (R-ME) and groups across the political spectrum to highlight the broad opposition to the FCC rule change. MoveOn is hoping to present a petition with the names of 100,000 people who have voiced their demand that the Senate vote to roll back the rule change.

You can sign the petition here.

The AP, meantime, carries a story about the FCC controversy and quotes Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America thusly: "We hope to put the final nail in the coffin of these ill-considered rules. The FCC can't be trusted to promote diversity."

Correspondent.com goes belly up

Another content syndication site has closed: EPN shutters Correspondent.com. Which is not to be confused with the still valuable Correspondences.org.

Associated Press's digital challenge

Missed this the other week from Editor & Publisher: The Associated Press plans "to transform the news service to meet the challenges of the electronic age."

CEO Tom Curley says of the new electronicAP: "We are transforming the AP from a wire service, which we've been for 150 years ... to an interactive database and news network that connects us, and not just connects us technically, but more importantly connects our common business and journalistic goals."

Over at bIPlog, Mary Hodder observes: "Sounds great, except this: Curley said that to increase revenues, the AP must expand its foreign presence, photo services, and revenue from the Internet, while increasing anti-piracy protection from those who would use AP's product without paying for it. Huh? I'm sorry, but that's absolutely hilarious."

AP is probably the ultimate poster child for content that's freely available everywhere. How are they going to lock text down with DRM?

Patriotism, Bush's Big Lie, and Nixonism revisited

Supporters of President Bush may want to move on to the next item. For those who remain, I need to vent a little ...

Americans with long memories will recall previous examples of national leaders using the Big Lie. In this country, Vietnam was sold as a Big Lie from the early '60s to mid-'70s. (Remember the domino theory? peace with honor?)

Last night President George W. Bush stepped up the effort to rewrite history by portraying the war in Iraq as a fight against terrorism. What we have here is nothing short of Nixonism revisited. Perhaps the most outrageous statement in his speech was its central assertion: that Iraq is "now the central front" in a global war against terrorism.

Bush, naturally, made virtually no mention of Iraq's inconveniently missing weapons of mass destruction. But he is inviting a huge division in this country by his mendacity and dissembling over an issue of monumental significance to our nation. (Here's the full text of Bush's Big Lie speech. Here's video of the speech.)

His minions of apologists will buy into the new party line, of course, instead of acknowledging the truth: that fighting the real war on terrorism is an effort that will require not armies sweeping over desert landscapes but changes in our domestic policies (why is there no money to screen luggage on airliners, Mr. President? why is no money being allocated to fund security efforts at seaports? why are there budget cuts at the Centers for Disease Control when bioterrorism remains a threat?) and especially our unilateralist, go-it-alone cowboy foreign policy of swagger, deception and lack of substance.

Thankfully, some people, like Howard Dean, are challenging the president's Big Lie. Dean told CBS: "The president is now leaving the impression in his speeches, without directly saying so, that, in fact, Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for 9/11, that he was in league with al-Qaeda.

"Those things are not true. They have not been documented. And we're losing eight to 10 soldiers every week, with more wounded.

"We're now about to go over the half-trillion-dollar mark in the deficit because the president insists on his reckless economic policies at home, as well as his reckless adventures abroad. I think it's a mistake."

Like Dean, I believe the American people are willing to bear our fair share of the burden of rebuilding Iraq, and that we need to remain in Iraq while internationalizing the relief effort. For the record, here are the latest costs associated with the Iraq misadventure:

• War-related funds requested from Congress (2002-2003): $75 billion

• Additional funds requested to date for 2003-2004: $87 billion

• 'Stabilization phase' for Iraq: $12 billion

• Current cost of post-war occupation: $3.9 billion/month

• Budget allocated in March for 'reconstruction phase': $7.2 billion

• Rebuilding cost (McKinsey estimate, July): up to $90 billion

• Iraq's estimated pre-war oil revenues: $15-25 billion/year

• Iraq's estimated debt: $60 - 130 billion

• US budget deficit for 2003-2004: $567 billion and rising.

Longtime NY Times corrspondent David E. Sanger reports today:

[Bush] fully merged the challenge of the occupation of Iraq with the terrorism of Al Qaeda, even though his own intelligence agencies found no link between Mr. Hussein and the conspirators of Sept. 11. Now, in a post-Iraq world, Mr. Bush is saying that link makes no difference ó the arrival of terrorists blowing up Americans in Baghdad and Tikrit in the postwar period have turned this into a single war. ...

To his critics ó including most of the Democratic presidential aspirants, who believe that Mr. Bush's initial go-it-alone instincts have become his biggest political vulnerability ó the president is wrongly blending the war against terrorism with the effort to build a stable Iraq.

"I think it bears little to no resemblance to the war on terrorism," said James Steinberg, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser and is now a scholar at the Brookings Institution. "There was a theory in this White House that if you were just tough, and knocked Saddam and those like him off, people would not mess with you anymore," he said tonight. "They would no longer regard you as weak.

"Now there is a risk that our muscularity, if not used in a smart way, could make us more vulnerable, not less."

As blogger Josh Marshall rightly notes:

The president has turned 9/11 into a sort of foreign policy perpetual motion machine in which the problems ginned up by policy failures become the rationale for intensifying those policies. The consequences of screw-ups become examples of the power of 'the terrorists'.

We're not on the offensive. We're on the defensive. A bunch of mumbo-jumbo and flim-flam doesn't change that. ...

The chaos in Iraq has opened the place up to serious infiltration by all manner of bad-actors from around the region -- a development which is not a justification for administration policy, but an example of its failure.

BBC News world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds also has a good read: Bush seeks his Kennedy moment.

Stepping back to take a wider view of Bush's policies, Jonathan Alter offers his take in Newsweek: Time for a New Patriotism? True loyalty to country is about more than saluting. Excerpt:

DISSENT IN THE DEEP FREEZE

For a time, the president struck just the right tone in his speeches and launched just the right policy in Afghanistan, where he promised that ìthe Evil OneîóOsama bin Ladenówould be brought to justice, though the public patiently understood this might take a few weeks or months. Because the United States was blameless on 9/11óand certainly did not ìhave it coming,î as a few ignorant left-wingers claimedódissent went into the deep freeze, subordinated to a need to pull together and take comfort in the greatness of America.

But soon patriotism moved from a comfort to a cudgel. An impulse that had briefly united now often divided, as it did in the past. At the turn of the last century, Samuel Clemens (better known as Mark Twain), who was deemed a traitor for opposing U.S. policy in the Philippines, derided what he called ìmonarchical patriotism.î The old royal idea that ìthe king can do no wrong,î Clemens reported with disgust, had been changed to ìour country, right or wrong.î ...

Somewhere, Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew are smiling down on George W. Bush.

Flash mobs for Dean

Doonesbury: Flash mobs for Dean.

Meantime, former Gov. Dean will be on Paula Zahn on CNN tonight at 8 pm ET / 5 pm PT.

Warren Zevon dies

Warren Zevon dies at 56. Tributes from MSNBC, the NY Times and Orlando Sentinel.

I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain He was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook's Going to get himself a big dish of beef chow mein Werewolves of London

If you hear him howling around your kitchen door
Better not let him in
Little old lady got mutilated late last night
Werewolves of London again
Werewolves of London

He's the hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent
Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair
Better stay away from him
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim
I'd like to meet his tailor
Werewolves of London

Well, I saw Lon Chaney walking with the Queen
Doing the Werewolves of London
I saw Lon Chaney, Jr. walking with the Queen
Doing the Werewolves of London

I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's
His hair was perfect
Werewolves of London
Draw blood

Moby's advice to the music industry

The brilliant Moby has posted some very wise advice on his site about the changes needed in the music industry. Key points:

[1 - An online store should offer digital downloads of music under these criteria:] a-the price needs to come down b-the value needs to increase c-the product has to be easy to acquire.

2-sell cd's at two retail prices ... sell your basic cd for $5 or $6 with very minimal packaging, and sell an enhanced cd package for $15 that would include bonus discs and posters and free access to on-line material and discounts on concert tickets, etc.

3-stop spending insane amounts of money making records and videos. ...

4-stop putting out shitty records. ...

5-stop persecuting people who are music fans. people who engage in file-sharing are people who like music. you can't make people feel guilty about loving and listening to music. the record companies need to see people who engage in file-sharing as music fans and not as criminals. and then they need to try to convince people to spend a little bit of money for music (with added value) rather than downloading it for free.

record companies and rich musicians complaining about file-sharing rings terribly false with most people. i mean, how can a 14 year old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multi-millionaire musicians and greedy record companies?

Eminently sensible advice.

RIAA sues 261 file sharers

The Recording Industry of America today began suing hundreds of music file sharers. I haven't been able to get onto the RIAA site all morning -- either it's extremely busy or they're under attack.

CNET News.com: RIAA sues 261 file swappers.

Here's what the Slashdotters and some Guntella News readers have to say, as well as a Gnutella News spoof about a proprietary peer-to-peer application beging developed by the Big Five music labels. Here's some Gnutella News advice on what to do about the RIAA's proposed amnesty deal.

And below is the RIAA's press release announcing their legal assault. They also rounded up a number of music publishers and songwriters who suggest "zero tolerance" for the file-sharing movement:

RECORDING INDUSTRY BEGINS SUING P2P FILE SHARERS WHO ILLEGALLY OFFER
COPYRIGHTED MUSIC ONLINE

Will Agree Not to Sue P2P Users Who Voluntarily Pledge to Stop Distributing
Music Illegally

Copyright Infringement Claims Filed Against Hundreds of Major Offenders In First Round of Potentially Thousands of Lawsuits

Lawsuits Part of Industry's Multi-Prong Approach That Includes New Business Models and Education

WASHINGTON (September 8, 2003) The Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) announced today that its member companies have filed the
first wave of what could ultimately be thousands of civil lawsuits against
major offenders who have been illegally distributing substantial amounts
(averaging more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each) of copyrighted
music on peer-to-peer networks. The RIAA emphasized that these lawsuits
have come only after a multi-year effort to educate the public about the
illegality of unauthorized downloading and noted that major music companies
have made vast catalogues of music available to dozens of new high-quality,
low-cost, legitimate online services.

At the same time, the RIAA announced that the industry is prepared to grant
what amounts to amnesty to P2P users who voluntarily identify themselves
and pledge to stop illegally sharing music on the Internet. The RIAA will
guarantee not to sue file sharers who have not yet been identified in any
RIAA investigations and who provide a signed and notarized affidavit in
which they promise to respect recording-company copyrights.

"For those who want to wipe the slate clean and to avoid a potential
lawsuit, this is the way to go," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA Chairman and
CEO. "We want to send a strong message that the illegal distribution of
copyrighted works has consequences, but if individuals are willing to step
forward on their own, we want to go the extra step and extend them this
option."

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said
RIAA president Cary Sherman. "But when your product is being regularly
stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action. We
simply cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of
artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music
industry."

Since the recording industry stepped up the enforcement phase of its
education program, public awareness that it is illegal to make copyrighted
music available online for others to download has risen sharply in recent
months. According to a recent survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates,
fully 61% of those polled in August admitted they knew such behavior was
against the lawup from 54 percent in July and 37 percent in early June,
prior to the announcement.

"We've been telling people for a long time that file sharing copyrighted
music is illegal, that you are not anonymous when you do it, and that
engaging in it can have real consequences," said Sherman. "And the message
is beginning to be heard. More and more P2P users are realizing that there
are dozens of legal ways to get music online, and they are beginning to
migrate to legitimate services. We hope to encourage even the worst
offenders to change their behavior, and acquire the music they want through
legal means."

Over the past year, the RIAA has also worked closely with the university
community to combat piracy. In recognition of the seriousness of the
problem, colleges across the country are implementing new restrictionsand
issuing severe warningsto discourage the swapping of pirated music and
movies over high-speed campus Internet connections.

Additional education efforts include more than four million Instant
Messages sent since May directly to infringers on the Kazaa and Grokster
networks warning them that they are not anonymous when they illegally offer
copyrighted music on these networks and that they could face legal action
if they didn't stop. The RIAA sent such a warning notice to virtually every
Kazaa and Grokster user who was sued today.

"Obviously, these individuals decided to continue to offer copyrighted
music illegally notwithstanding the warnings," said Sherman. "We hope that
today's actions will convince doubters that we are serious about protecting
our rights."

In today's first round of lawsuits, RIAA member companies filed copyright
infringement claims against more than 250 individual file sharers.

The RIAA announced on June 25 that it would be gathering evidence in order
to bring lawsuits in September against computer users who illegally
distribute copyrighted music through such peer-to-peer file distribution
networks as Kazaa and Grokster. Individuals caught distributing copyrighted
files on Kazaa, Grokster, Imesh, Gnutella, and Blubster were targeted in
this initial round.

Since it announced its lawsuit plans, the RIAA has been contacted by a
number of illegal file sharers expressing concern over their actions and
wanting to know what they could do to avoid being sued. In response, the
RIAA has decided not to pursue users who step forward before being targeted
for past illegal sharing of copyrighted works. Instead, those who want to
start fresh will be asked to sign a declaration pledging they will delete
all illegally obtained music files from their hard drives and never again
digitally distribute or download music illegally. Detailed information on
how to apply and qualify for this amnesty is available at the web site
www.musicunited.org.

Over the past year, an unprecedented campaign by a coalition of
songwriters, recording artists, music publishers, retailers, and record
companies has heightened music fans' awareness of the devastating impact of
illegal file sharing. A series of print and broadcast ads featuring top
recording artists, as well as numerous press interviews by music industry
figures, have conveyed the message that file sharing not only robs
songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, it also undermines
the future of music itself by depriving the industry of the resources it
needs to find and develop new talent. In addition, it threatens the jobs
of tens of thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry, from
engineers and technicians to warehouse workers and record store clerks.

At the same time, the industry has responded to consumer demand by making
its music available to a wide range of authorized online subscription,
streaming and download services that make it easier than ever for fans to
get music legally and inexpensively on the Internet. These services also
offer music reliably, with the highest sound quality, and without the risks
of exposure to viruses or other undesirable material.

Federal law and the federal courts have been quite clear on what
constitutes illegal behavior when it comes to "sharing" music files on the
Internet. It is illegal to make available for download copyrighted works
without permission of the copyright owner. Court decisions have affirmed
this repeatedly. In the recent Grokster decision, for example, the court
confirmed that Grokster users were guilty of copyright infringement. And in
last year's Aimster decision, the judge wrote that the idea that "ongoing,
massive, and unauthorized distribution and copying of copyrighted works
somehow constitutes
'personal use' is specious and unsupported."

A number of other music community leaders expressed support for strong
enforcement against egregious instances of copyright theft.

Bart Herbison, Executive Director, Nashville Songwriters Association
International:
"When someone steals a song on the Internet it is not a victimless
crime. Songwriters pay their rent, medical bills and children's'
educational expenses with royalty income. That income has been
dramatically impacted by illegal downloading, so many have reassessed their
careers as songwriters. It breaks my heart that songwriters are choosing
other professions because they cannot earn a living in great part due to
illegal downloading."

Thomas F. Lee, President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada: "No one is eager to see copyright infringement lawsuits against
individuals. But copyright infringement hurts many thousands of other
individuals. Most musicians who depend on CD sales and legal downloading
are not wealthy mega-celebrities. They are artists struggling to succeed
without a
'day job.' They are ordinary session musicians who depend on
union-negotiated payments that fall drastically when sales fall. They are
songwriters who depend on royalties to put food on the table. The AFM has
said it before: Musicians make music for love, but they can't afford to do
it without an income. The AFM urges all music fans to support artists by
using only legal means to distribute and obtain music."

Lamont Dozier, Legendary songwriter:
"I wish people who are practicing illegal file sharing would stop for a
moment and think about the damage that is being done here, and step in the
shoes of people who have families and children, who have been laid off from
jobs they've held for over 20 years. In a time where jobs are very hard to
come by, and you find yourself forced to be un-employed, because the
business is falling apart, deals aren't being made, record stores are
closing, lay-offs are happening world-wide in every aspect of music, from
cd packers to guitar players to secretarys to hopeful songwriters and
artists, who will not have a music industry any longer., People are being
lied to about the damage that piracy and illegal file sharing is doing to
our country, not just to the music industry, but it is effecting every
aspect of our lives. Each business in this country is linked to each other,
and all industries are failing and the economy is falling apart. Illegal
file sharing is one of these cancerous straws that are breaking the camel's
back."

Frances W. Preston, President of BMI:
"Illegal downloading of music is theft, pure and simple. It robs
songwriters, artists, and the industry that supports them or their property
and their livelihood. Ironically, those who steal music are stealing the
future creativity they so passionately crave. We must end the destructive
cycle now."

Rick Carnes, President, Songwriters Guild of America:
"It breaks my heart to see the great songs of American songwriters
electronically shoplifted by the millions every day. Like everyone else,
songwriters can't make a living if we aren't paid for our hard work. We
have done all that we could to educate and warn the public that rampant
internet piracy is killing our music. Anyone still sharing copyrighted
music files without the permission of the copyright holder should know what
they are doing is not only wrong, it is illegal."

National Association of Recording Merchandisers:
"NARM believes the RIAA has the right to act on behalf of copyright holders
and recording artists to protect their rights, their interests and their
creative works as the law provides."

Gary Himelfarb, President, RAS Records:
"In 1981, as an aspiring entrepreneur and reggae music lover, I started a
small label (RAS Records) in the basement of my home right outside of
Washington DC. I did this, like so many other independent label owners (of
which there are literally thousands of-as compared to only 4 majors) not to
make millions of dollars, but instead to create music which I loved and to
have a profession that I loved doing each day.

"Over the years we created over three hundred full length CDs and I have
been able to support myself and my wife and two kids. I have always
considered myself to be very fortunate to do what I love, fairly compensate
the artists and writers I work with and build a company that has respect
and integrity within the music industry.

"The way independent labels have always made money is by selling catalog,
since we are not able to promote our songs on radio and create hits, like
the majors. The majors, although they also over time create impressive
catalogs, depend on the sales of
'hit' records to generate the income they
need to run their companies. We independents have always depended on
catalog sales.

"We have always had consistent sales of our catalog titles, even if a
release was 10 years old. Since the invention of Napster and other illegal
file sharing activities, the independent labels have experienced a serious
drop in the sales of our catalogs. It is not mere coincidence that this
drop off has occurred concurrently with the advent of peoples ability to
get music for free on the Internet.

"As an independent label owner who has now seen my sales consistently
shrink from year to year, I am firmly against the activities of people and
companies who allow my music to be illegally downloaded on the Internet. I
am strongly in favor of allowing legal websites to offer my music for a
fair price (and sometimes even free-with my prior permission) and look
forward to participating in the legal digital distribution of music.

"If it is necessary to prosecute those who are purposely sharing large
numbers of music files without regard for the artists, writers and labels
that work so hard day in and day out, then so be it. If we do not get this
problem under control, the public will suffer as less entrepreneurs like
myself will be willing to invest their time or money into creating music
catalogs for the world to enjoy."

Bill Velez, President and COO, SESAC:
"In the current atmosphere of widespread online copyright piracy, SESAC
endorses efforts to protect the livelihoods of songwriters and music
publishers and the sanctity of intellectual property."

Bruce Iglauer, President, Alligator Records:
"No one is hurt more by the illegal
'sharing' of copyrighted music than
the independent artist and the independent record label. The struggling
indies already occupy a much smaller market share than the majors. The
independents' loss of income from the elimination of even a small number of
sales can be the difference between whether much independent music is
recorded or not. If this proliferation of the theft of the creations of
artists continues, less and less music will be recorded. The public must
be educated about the real results stealing music from its creators.

"It is unfortunate that the problem of illegal
'sharing' of copyrighted
music has grown to the point where legal action is necessary, but that is
the case. Until such time as the public is jarred into awareness, it is
the sad necessity that the people who create and own the music must
aggressively defend themselves from having their creations stolen."

Sharon Corbitt, Nashville Studio Manager:
"As studio manager of Ocean Way Nashville and my 19 years on Music Row, I
have seen our industry go through many changes. We are faced with even
larger obstacles than ever due to the illegal downloading of music on the
internet. It may seem extreme to people to pursue legally those who
continue to "illegally obtain music on a daily basis" . Illegal downloading
of music is the same as someone walking into your home and stealing
something that you had created and was of value. People make their livings
creating music. The cost of a recording is covered by that recording being
sold to consumers. In the end, the consumer suffers from illegal
downloading because proper funding will not be available to cover the cost
to produce that recording.

"A songwriter has a job just like an electrician or a computer programmer.
They sit down and write songs in the hopes that their creation will be
recorded by an artist and eventually purchased by the consumer. That's how
they make their money. By illegally downloading music we are effecting the
creation of the music itself. The quality of music will suffer and the
consumer will in return suffer. Music is healing. You would only want the
best medicine and doctors to fight a disease. Illegal downloading is not
allowing the
'best cure' to find its way to the person seeking healing.
Something has got to change or we are all going to regret what the final
outcome will be, no more quality music, fewer healing words..."

Courtney Proffitt, Executive Director of the Association for Independent Music: "The Association for Independent Music has been educating people for the past year that online music piracy is hurting everyone in the music industry not just the major labels. The independent sector has been hard hit the past few years, even though this is the sector that often has the most innovative and creative music production. The small indie labels are struggling to promote and sell their music, in order to stay in business. If they are not getting paid for the music they create, they cannot continue to operate. This results in a loss to our overall culture.

"Many talented musicians are no longer receiving royalty payments that they have been depending upon as income. These royalty payments were supporting them and helping them to continue their craft: creating new music for the public's enjoyment. With the loss of this revenue, many musicians have had to quit and find "day jobs" to make a living. I consider this to be a loss for everyone.

"Additionally, my organization has independent music retail as members. Many of the independent music stores have lost revenue due to illegal downloading, and loss of customer base. They are having trouble continuing to stay in business as the "local record store." Many have been forced to close their doors due to this downturn in business, and it also affects the economy of the community where they are located.

"I urge people to be aware of this situation, and the consequences that are the result of illegal downloading of music. It is not just hurting an anonymous "music industry". It is hurting real people such as the artists who create the music, people who promote and distribute the music, all the way to the music store clerk who works at your local music retailer."

Chuck Cannon, President, Wacissa River Music, Incorporated: "I'm a professional songwriter. This means I provide for my family by receiving a royalty when a CD containing one of my songs sells. This also means if you acquire possession of one of my songs without paying for it, you have intercepted my paycheck. That makes you a criminal.

"If you engage in illegal downloading, that is, if you download a song without paying for it, you are a common thief. If you allow your children to engage in illegal downloading, you are telling them 'in our home, thievery is acceptable.' If you are a college administrator and you turn a blind eye to illegal downloading on your campus, you are encouraging larceny in your hallowed halls of education."

Mike Negra, President, Mike's Video:
"Mike's Video continues to see the effects of illegal downloading and burning. Our chain has shrunk from five stores to one, resulting in a loss of 12 music-oriented jobs and over $2 million dollars a year in music revenue. Even with that consolidation, we face an uncertain future due to the core customers of our town, 42,000 Penn State University students. This year's results to date show sales down 45% overall versus 2002. The single store comparable is down 6.2%.

"The message of zero tolerance towards digital thievery needs to be delivered to those who continue to ignore the obvious. The facts of the situation are people are buying less music and record stores are going out of business. This is a direct result of illegal downloading and burning and is especially prevalent in college towns such as State College.

"The story of stores like Mike's is being played out across the country next to or on college campuses. It is one the downloading public isn't aware of or concerned about. I applaud the effort the RIAA has given this problem but I don't believe either of us are satisfied with the results. The continuation of lawsuits and awareness towards the overall ill effects throughout the industry is paramount if we hope to save the industry we all love.

"I'm willing to do whatever it takes to help save or reshape the music business and change the attitudes that exist. Maybe it will help personalize the deep effects this so-called victimless crime has had."

Cecilia Carter, the R&B Foundation:
"The R&B Foundation provides medical and financial assistance to older musicians. Many of the people we serve can barely survive without our help and the few dollars they receive from royalty payments. The downloading and sharing of music files, negatively impacts the amount of royalty payments received by our artists. Although the amount of money may seem insignificant at the time you are getting it for free, it can mean the difference in a musician's ability to pay rent or face homelessness. We strongly support the music industry's effort to stop free downloading and file sharing. It is a matter of survival to our constituents."

John W. Styll, President, Gospel Music Association:
"The gospel music community has not been immune from the financial damage caused by those who illegally obtain music through downloading. Some may argue that it is an act of ministry to give Christian music away. The GMA certainly believes that it is good for people to be exposed to the message of gospel music, just as it would be good for people to read the Bible, but stealing either music or Bibles cannot be justified. It's unfortunate that the music industry has had to resort to prosecution to deter theft, but there seems to be no other choice and thus we lend our support. And as believers in the concept of grace, we are glad to support the amnesty program as well."

Dale Mathews, President, Christian Music Publishers Association: "The surge and volume of illegal file-sharing over the past several years cry out for action rooted in strength. This latest legal action by the Music Coalition meets that criteria and is supported by the Church Music Publishers Association. We feel it is the small, grass roots writer who is most severely damaged by the all too common illegal acts of file-sharing."

Members of the Tennessee Songwriters Association:

Tom Mobley:
"It is, of course, illegal. It robs from everyone. Many great songs will never be heard because they will not be on a CD or cassette with a hit song. If a CD sells a million so does every song on it. If someone downloads only one song, the others will never be heard."

Jan Johnson:
"I am a songwriter, and even though I have not received any royalties to this date, I think it is so absolutely absurd that people have the mentality about using someone else's product for free."

Clark Snyder:
"I think we need TV and radio spots like Hollywood is doing for illegal movie downloading. Creating a legal downloading system is the key. I would infiltrate illegal sites with legal downloading options that pop up like some other sites are now doing effectively. More artists & writers need to tale the risk and stand up and take a public stand on this matter."

Donna DeSopo:
"Doesn't illegal say it all? This is against the law. Music is a creative intellectual property and the creators are entitled to earn a profit. They own it and no one should steal their work. Great music comes with a price, because it is priceless."

Harry Date:
"It's wrong, but people won't stop doing it until they fear the penalty for doing so. The current industry approach is the correct response go after
them."

Ann Roux:
"I'd like to ask one question of those who defend this illegal activity. How would you like it if I just waltzed into your house and walked out carrying every belonging of yours I felt like owning and not paying for? That's how I feel about it."

D.R. Theroux:
"Illegal music downloading is a form of theft, the taking of intellectual property. Such theft degrades the songwriting profession greatly."

Donna Dean:
"More education is needed on illegal downloading to let people know that even though the record companies and recording artists may be filthy rich, most songwriters are not."

Rodney Hayden:
"Downloading music from the Internet is nothing more than stealing, plain and simple. It is also an easy way steal. It's about time people in the music industry come together and legally put an end to this abomination."

Hugh Prestwood, number-one Country Music hit songwriter:

Dear File-sharers,

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the great majority of you truly feel no guilt about the "sharing" of what I have created and own -- my music. You have lumped together many professions artists, songwriters, engineers, producers, publishers, etc. into one big ugly corporate caricature -- a rich and corrupt industry that can be stolen from remorselessly. Additionally, in your "yes, Virginia, there is a free lunch" mentality, you have unthinkingly devalued songs to the extent that you perceive them as trifles something of little value to be partaken and enjoyed at no cost. Moreover, you have unfairly condemned me and my record industry peers for bringing the law to bear against you. In classic "blame the victim" reasoning, you lay the responsibility for my losses at my feet, saying, in essence, that the problem is not your theft, but rather my inability to prevent it.

Well, file-sharers, I righteously say "bull." I, songwriter/publisher, labored for years to create those songs, and I really do legally own them. I not you -- have the right to control what happens to them, a right your technology does not trump. You are dead wrong to simply give my songs away and undermine my only chance to profit from my creations. Don't tell me that I should gracefully pardon your hand in my pocket. Don't insinuate to me that, because your thievery is so facile, perhaps I should find some other way to make a living. Your "hobby" is taking the bread off my table, and I have every right to use any and all legal means possible to discourage your destructive practices.

Let us come together. You often love what I create, and I need to make a living. I have been trying for several years now to find a way for us both to be happy where you can easily acquire my songs and I can be justly rewarded for my creativity. Try as I might, however, thus far I have been unable to find a way to compete with "free". You must help me.

First, you must wake up from your fantasy that songs should rightly be free, and that no one is being hurt by your theft. I and all my fellow songwriters (among others) are seeing our futures seriously threatened. Second, you must "raise your consciousness" to where you understand that a career in music is brutally serendipitous and difficult to maintain. The ability of artists and songwriters to have any kind of dependable, longer-term, income is entirely linked to their ability to control their copyrights. Without copyright protection, aspiring artists and songwriters had best not ever consider quitting their day jobs.

Finally, you must realize that in real life you really do get what you pay for. If you won't pay for music, you will soon be receiving a product commensurate with your thriftiness. A society that doesn't value a commodity enough to pay for it will soon see the creation and production of that commodity cease.

--Hugh Prestwood