I'm a consumer and not a recording artist, so my perspective on this issue is probably different than most artists. I love music and I like to support the artists who record the music I listen to. In the past, I bought lots of albums and listened to the radio. When the RIAA started suing children and parents I stopped buying albums. I didn't buy a single album for 10 years. Now I hear and read horror stories about corrupt record labels and too many middlemen. Popular artists who can't pay their bills. Now the RIAA and MPAA want to put a stranglehold on music distribution. I think the music industry as it stands today needs to be flushed down the toilet. Especially the RIAA and MPAA. We need someone to step up and provide an online service for recording artists and/or producers to design/submit albums electronically and securely. This service would then make the albums available through iTunes, Pandora, Amazon, etc. and even the artists own website. Consumers could purchase CDs via mail or MP3s and/or ISO (CD Images) for download if the artist chooses. This service would act as the label and distributor. All rights to the music would be retained by the artists. A simple service-type contract with an annual fee and a small fee per album sold should be enough to keep the service profitable and most of the money from the album sales would go to the artist as it should be.
Interesting blog. I'm wondering what innovations Apple is guilty of, though. When I look at their mobile products, I see nice packaging and lots of sparkle. They do a nice job assembling a quality product from off-the-shelf components. Their software is interesting and user friendly although it's not particularly stable. I know a couple of people who use their iPhones a lot and they wind up using the reset feature a couple of times a month. I just don't see anything new or innovative. I've asked around and the general consensus is that there are 3 features that Apple fans consider to be innovative. The capacitive touch screen, gesture interface and app support. The problem I have with giving Apple credit for those is that there is prior art. Capacitive touch screens have been around since the '80s, the gesture interface was already used on the Mitsubishi Diamond Touch product and app support was pretty much copied from IBM's Simon smartphone. So where's the innovation?
Another thing I would like to mention is that if this jury's verdict stands prior art doesn't mean anything in an IP litigation case anymore. The jurors admitted that they completely skipped the prior art and decided to assume that Apple's patents were valid. If we're going to take that stance, what's the point in even bringing these cases to trial?
Authored Comments
I'm a consumer and not a recording artist, so my perspective on this issue is probably different than most artists. I love music and I like to support the artists who record the music I listen to. In the past, I bought lots of albums and listened to the radio. When the RIAA started suing children and parents I stopped buying albums. I didn't buy a single album for 10 years. Now I hear and read horror stories about corrupt record labels and too many middlemen. Popular artists who can't pay their bills. Now the RIAA and MPAA want to put a stranglehold on music distribution. I think the music industry as it stands today needs to be flushed down the toilet. Especially the RIAA and MPAA. We need someone to step up and provide an online service for recording artists and/or producers to design/submit albums electronically and securely. This service would then make the albums available through iTunes, Pandora, Amazon, etc. and even the artists own website. Consumers could purchase CDs via mail or MP3s and/or ISO (CD Images) for download if the artist chooses. This service would act as the label and distributor. All rights to the music would be retained by the artists. A simple service-type contract with an annual fee and a small fee per album sold should be enough to keep the service profitable and most of the money from the album sales would go to the artist as it should be.
Interesting blog. I'm wondering what innovations Apple is guilty of, though. When I look at their mobile products, I see nice packaging and lots of sparkle. They do a nice job assembling a quality product from off-the-shelf components. Their software is interesting and user friendly although it's not particularly stable. I know a couple of people who use their iPhones a lot and they wind up using the reset feature a couple of times a month. I just don't see anything new or innovative. I've asked around and the general consensus is that there are 3 features that Apple fans consider to be innovative. The capacitive touch screen, gesture interface and app support. The problem I have with giving Apple credit for those is that there is prior art. Capacitive touch screens have been around since the '80s, the gesture interface was already used on the Mitsubishi Diamond Touch product and app support was pretty much copied from IBM's Simon smartphone. So where's the innovation?
Another thing I would like to mention is that if this jury's verdict stands prior art doesn't mean anything in an IP litigation case anymore. The jurors admitted that they completely skipped the prior art and decided to assume that Apple's patents were valid. If we're going to take that stance, what's the point in even bringing these cases to trial?