NYTimes Editorial Far From The Mark

This editorial on the Grokster case makes many common mistakes. For example:

...individual creators of music, movies and books, who need to keep getting paid if they are going to keep creating. If their work is suddenly made "free," all of society is likely to suffer.

I refer the writer to a recently published article in the Economist. It is in no way clear that illegal downloading hurts legal music or movie sales. If those industries are seeing sales declining, perhaps they should first look to the source and wonder whether their products are even worth buying. From another editorial by Alan Wexelblat:

There's just one eensy weensy problem here - NOBODY's livelihood is being stolen. It's just not happening. There were no WMD in Iraq, there was no cocaine on that boat (*), and music sharing does not cost artists money.
...
In addition to a lack of negative effects, the study argues, there is evidence for a positive correlation between sharing music and purchasing more new music.

He refers to this study by Keio Universtity Economics professor Tatsuo Tanaka. See also this study by Strumpf and Oberholtzer.

So, let's face it. p2p services are being wrongly blamed for dipping sales, while the true culprits are ignored: consumers have access to a wider range of media services than ever before, and have begun to realize that the top 40 RIAA titles are not worth their attention. Fat cats fear the Long Tail, but it's comin'. Time to switch business models or sink fast.

That said, should Grokster lose its court battle, I guess I'll be giving up the use of Xerox, VCRs, TCP/IP, blogs (sorry), e-mail, CD burners, silly putty, iPods, and tape decks, all of which have the potential to infringe copyright restrictions.

Actually no, I won't. So sue me.