Comments abound on the WSJ article on Universal’s deal with Imeem. For example, Techdirt.com argues:

And because Imeem’s site doesn’t use DRM, Imeem downloading tools are probably legal under the DMCA. So what we have here is the de facto legalization of Napster-like sites, as long as the record labels get a cut of the advertising revenue. It’s an exciting development, albeit one that should have happened seven years ago.

So what value do labels bring to IMEEM? I mean, besides their tacit approval?

What if IMEEM becomes a gateway to legal downloads for a legitimate price? Such a platform further marginalizes the major labels in a manner that Mr. Morris complains about re: Apple / iTunes. It’s distribution and promotion that the labels didn’t create.

The labels only get paid because their approval costs money. It’s probable that a disgustingly small percentage of the payments from IMEEM to the labels will get passed through to the artists.

Digg pointed to a TorrentFreak.com post that focuses on a recent comments by 50 Cent. The money quote:

Pål asked 50 Cent: “How are G-Unit Records doing in these times of file-sharing?

“Not so good.” he responded. “The advances in technology impacts everyone, and we all must adapt. Most of all hip-hop, a style of music dependent upon a youthful audience. This market consists of individuals embracing innovations faster than the fans of classical and jazz music.”

“What is important for the music industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists.”
…

“The concerts are crowded and the industry must understand that they have to manage all the 360 degrees around an artist. They, (the industry), have to maximize their income from concerts and merchandise. It is the only way they can get their marketing money back.”

Mr. Cent affirms newly conventional wisdom with his quote. But is he talking as artist, or artist now record label executive? Mr. Cent - artist - is quick to give Mr. Big Cent - label executive - rights to concert and merchandise revenues.

‘Tis the season of giving, but that seems potentially excessive.

Also see the take on Techdirt.com.

“The secret to happiness is a bad first marriage.” Dr. Barry Schwartz said that some where, I’m sure.

Thanks to Daring Fireball for posting a link to this TED video.

Sometimes, I just love the web. RoughType posted an article about Slutbot scams, which was fun to read. I’m sure it has some relevance to this blog.

Nicholas Carr sites a post by Ina Fried. Money quote:

The artificial intelligence of CyberLover’s automated chats is good enough that victims have a tough time distinguishing the “bot” from a real potential suitor, [security software firm] PC Tools said.

What I think this means is that a bot can make money on the web. Then again, it passed an artificial intelligence test that blog writers might routinely fail. Painful irony.

Also, I did a Google image search with the term ’slutbot’. The included image was the first item returned on the search.

So what will the Web 2.0 version of SlutBot be?

The screenwriters’ strike took a turn for the worse. Today’s WSJ article made the following, interesting point:

The impact of a prolonged strike could go far beyond this season. The broadcast networks, already grappling with a slow, long-term decline in viewers, depend heavily on new episodes of shows to draw audiences. Without new dramas and comedies, they will have to rely on reality shows, game shows and stunt specials, a glut of which could send audiences flocking to other forms of entertainment.

“There’s a huge transition in our business,” Steven Bochco, creator of the TV hits “L.A. Law” and “NYPD Blue,” said in a recent interview. “This may hasten the demise of the model that we’ve all worked under.”

This quote includes one of my favorite terms - ‘long-term decline.’ That term is only Network TV centric. Audience remains audience.

What are TV viewers going to do without new TV shows? Substitute. Fewer TV viewers, more DVD viewers, perhaps. Fewer Lost fans, more fans of Hero torrents, perhaps. Maybe more quality time on the web, reading blogs. Maybe more time at the iTunes store surfering for impulse video purchases.

Audience choice is vast. Substitution is easy. These qualities evolve slowly; in other words, nothing has changed, absent the absence of new TV shows.

Network TV is on the verge of its version of the Baseball strike. After compulsive self mutilation, the Commissioner of Network TV will work hard to rebuild audience. To do that, the ability to substitute in favor of Network TV will have to be easy and cheap.

What then will happen to locked-down, ad-based content viewers? My thought, too.