I am pleased to post Show #34, my interview with Prof. Terry Fisher of Harvard Law School, discussing his book “Promises to Keep.” Terry’s book is a very well-balanced analysis of the entertainment industry’s business model and use of intellectual property rights. As Terry says, he takes the industry’s claim to property rights seriously, and through that prism evaluates where the industry is and is headed. As a topic that is very relevant to all who consume entertainment, whether on KZSU-FM, iTunes or the theater, I enjoyed discussing the state of the industry, as well as its intellectual property claims and Terry’s proposed solution, with one of the experts in the field. I hope you enjoy listening in!
This was an easier week for choosing music; hence the absent music from this show:
(1) Free Man in Paris/Joni Mitchell/Court and Spark
(2) Friend Of The Devil/Jerry Garcia/Lonesome Prison Blues
(3) Only The Song Survives/John Hiatt/Crossing Muddy Waters
(4) Hold On, Hold On/Neko Case/Fox Confessor Brings the Flood
Become a fan of the 
Prof. Fisher certainly represents his clients (real or proposed) well. Speaking only for the recording industry, he clearly articulates their priorities and their tactics (e.g. Sony root kit). He proposes to place in them law or under the control of a private entity in an effort to protect their property.
I would suggest that Prof. Fisher’s experience is extremely limited and frankly, that he is utterly out of touch with the marketplace itself. To hear him and you deride government regulation and propose private control as an a priori superior solution echoes quite shallowing in my ears. I’m not suggesting the a legislative solution is the preferred one, but I find it interesting to hear this fallacy so easily repeated on your show.
A few random points.
I would heartily encourage Prof. Fisher to support his more invasive model of private enforcement of copyright. It would, very, very quickly kill the indsutry he thinks he will support. I would seriously question the judgment of anyone who thinks the public will tolerate this kind of private enterprise type of digital vigilantalism.
I would also challenge the idea that there are useful functions which the existing recording industry performs. He mentioned that selecting artists, making high quality recordings were just two functions which they might perform. That’s uninformed and ridiculous. In the case of music, recording is almost exclusively the province of the artist. The record label may have an influence but few people, even in the industry, would argue that the involvement, even peripherally, of the labels leads to high quality recordings. In fact, it’s easily demonstrable that in the large number of cases, it’s quite the reverse. In the realm of artist selection, what the music industry refers to as A&R, again, the function of the industry itself is only that of a funnel. The participation of the industry does not guarantee the consumer better music, only music which can be sold. Generally speaking, this has led the industry to publish music which is similar to previous music which has been popular. Not really a very good model all things considered.
I won’t ramble on here other than to say I was horrified throughout the show by many of Prof. Fisher’s comments and ideas. While I do think agree with more than a few things he suggested I think his solutions, for the most part, were either bad or would only accelerate the problems he proposes to solve.
Just my opinion and well worth the electrons it took to post.
Thanks for the chance to rant.