Charles Vestal alerts us to the news that Zombieland writer/director Rhett Reese has apparently be using Twitter to shame people who were mentioning that they were watching unauthorized copies of Zombieland at home, declaring to each one: "You realize we do what we do for money, right? Same as you." This comes soon after we highlighted some directors and moviemakers have found success by embracing those who were downloading their movie, recognizing that it was leading to more sales.

And, in fact, at least some of the people that Reese called out complained that they had actually seen the film multiple times in the theater and planning to buy the official DVD once it came out as well. In other words, the reason the movie is downloaded so much is because people like it, and yes, they still are supporting the moviemakers.

So, what made Reese lash out at these fans? You guessed it. He claimed he had just watched the 60 Minutes episode on movie piracy -- the one that we debunked for being factually incorrect, and it resulted in him getting angry at these fans, without thinking through the fact that the download might not be a substitute. But, even after the fans told him they had seen the film multiple times in the theaters, he's complaining that this decreases the chances of a sequel getting made. Given the massive popularity of the film -- both in the theater and online -- that seems highly unlikely. As we've seen before, the popularity of a movie in unauthorized downloads closely correlates with its box office take in many instances. It's rarely a sign of "lost revenue," and quite often a good indicator of actual revenue. In fact, the details show that Zombieland has done amazingly well, already earning back much more than it cost. Reese has a strong and loyal fanbase who want to support him and a very successful movie on his hands. Rather than attacking them, he should look for ways to embrace them and give them more real reasons to buy.

A bunch of folks have sent over a post on Slashdot detailing how a mandatory US gov't briefing on "information security" uses incredibly hyperbolic and inaccurate information, including the idea that all music downloads are theft and insecure. You can see the (flash-heavy) video briefing. The actual part with the music downloads is pretty far into the presentation (you can jump forward through the chapters), when it hits an interactive bit where you get to go through "real-life scenarios" of "threats." In the bottom left corner, there's a scenario involving a colleague who says he's found a "cool site" from which you can "download music" and asks you how do you respond: The choices?

1. I'd rather download the music from home -- email me the link
2. Is it safe to download?
3. Since we're on our lunch hour, I see no harm. Here's my thumb drive!
4. That's stealing.

Choices one and three seem obviously wrong, but choice two actually does seem like the most relevant. After all, the "cool site" in question could be any number of "cool sites" that offer up legal free music, like Jamendo or CCMixter. But what happens if you select the second choice and ask if it's safe to download? You're told no, that's wrong: And then are scolded, saying that it's illegal and prohibited, followed up by another lecture about how not only is it illegal and prohibited, but unethical and "may result in criminal" liability. Someone should tell the folks at that cool Jamendo site.

Now, to be fair, it's rather obvious that the briefing is designed to keep gov't employees from using file sharing programs and potentially exposing confidential gov't documents via file sharing. And that's reasonable. But why not be accurate and honest about it? Lying about it makes no sense.

I recently listened to an interview with a famed old school reggae musician, who's been in the business for 42 years. The interviewer asked him what kind of music he liked to listen to himself, and the guy said: "All kinds." He explained, by saying that any serious musician should listen to as much music as possible, just to learn from it and build your own skills. So even if he doesn't play country music or symphonies, he tries to listen to them just to gain a better appreciation of them so that he can take some of that and bring it back to his own music. This is a key point in the creative process, which is often missed by those who insist that musical creation is some sort of individual effort that doesn't involve outside influence.

It's also a point highlighted by musician David Hahn, writing a response to a mother concerned about her son file sharing. She sent in a note to The Working Musician, a blog by and for working musicians, saying that her son file shares, and she wants him to stop, saying that he would feel differently if it was his music being shared. Hahn replies, however, by telling her that he feels exactly the opposite: and that her son should download as much music as possible (found via EFF):

My perspective on file-sharing is probably different that you would expect. I think that your son should download every track he can find. I mean it. Download every song out there and sift through them one by one. And not just the genres he likes -- but everything -- Creole bandeon playing, French rap, hymns, metal, classical, South African jazz, samba -- whatever he can find.... If you're son is really going to be a musician -- I mean make a real, professional try at it -- he's going to need to know every one of those genres.

He goes on to give a number of other reasons to support this position, and it makes for quite a read. Obviously, plenty of musicians disagree with this, and we're not posting this to suggest it's a representative view of musicians. But it's yet another well-argued explanation for why locking up music isn't necessarily in musicians' best interests, despite what some might tell you.

Lots of attention is being paid today to an article in the Guardian about a new study claiming that illegal file sharing has collapsed in the UK and is being replaced by streaming music found on YouTube and through services like Spotify. The premise of the article is that now that kids have alternatives, they're willing to dump unauthorized file sharing and get by with streaming. While I don't doubt that it may be true in some cases, I'd take these findings with a pretty large grain of salt for a variety of reasons:

• It's not based on actual usage data, but on survey data.
• As more and more attention is being paid to people getting sued and fined for online file sharing activities, people are certainly going to be less willing to admit on a survey that they participate.
• This is especially true in the UK, where there's been a tremendous amount of attention on the recent Digital Britain report, which claims, as a goal, to reduce illegal online file sharing activities.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that some users have modified their behavior due to the ease of use from online streaming platforms. When I was in the UK, I got to play around with Spotify, and I could see how many people might start using that as a replacement for file sharing much of the time (and demos of Spotify's mobile app that include syncing features when there's no internet connection make it look quite compelling for even offline music playing).

However, even if we take what the article says as proof, it seems quite likely that the industry will muck this up too. Already, we've seen that Spotify is running into licensing problems, and the company is nowhere near being able to turn a profit. And, of course, the industry is pushing for increasingly unsustainable webcasting rates. That's why YouTube and PRS still haven't come to an agreement over all that streaming music in the UK, and even as PRS has tried to lower its rates to make a deal, some of the record labels are actually demanding the rates be pushed back up.

This is how the legacy industry kills anything even remotely positive. The second that the industry sees anything that's working, it suddenly smothers it by demanding to get a bigger and bigger cut. We've seen it for years. As soon as iTunes started to be successful, the labels pushed to get a bigger and bigger cut from any sale (and to push the prices of each song higher). More recently, with the massive success of video games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band helping to promote music (and making musicians a ton of money), the labels have been demanding a bigger cut as well.

Rather than understanding how to create and foster a healthy music ecosystem, it seems that some of the major label bosses have learned how to do one thing only: squeeze each tiny baby lemon as hard as possible until it's dry, never giving it a chance to actually grow. And then they wonder how come each new revenue stream doesn't make as much money as their old way of doing business.

TorrentFreak has the odd story of the band Franz Ferdinand, out of Scotland, who in the past has encouraged fans to use file sharing software to get access to various songs from the band. However, a bunch of websites were surprised to receive takedown notices from Web Sheriff concerning posts linking to tracks from Franz Ferdinand's latest album. When those sites asked for clarification, rather than actually answering any of the questions raised, Web Sheriff ratcheted up the rhetoric into legal threats. Now, clearly, it's within the legal rights of a band to encourage access to some songs, but not others, but that certainly gives fans (who are trying to promote the band) an incredibly mixed message.

We all know that child porn is a terrible problem -- and I have absolutely no problem with severely punishing anyone involved in the production or distribution of it. However, where things get tricky is when you start punishing anyone merely for possession. Sure, if it's a situation where someone is discovered with a ton of it, that might be a different scenario (though, I would think it's more of an issue to be handled with psychiatric help, rather than criminal prosecution), but mere possession in the digital age is problematic. Anyone can send someone an email with a pornographic picture attached, and suddenly the recipient is guilty of possessing child porn through no fault of his own. Or, you could get some malware that pops up such images. There are plenty of ways that people could unwittingly have such images on their computer, and making them criminally liable could result in some pretty awful scenarios.

Apparently, the guy the Irish government put in charge of dealing with the child porn problem hasn't thought about any of this, however. He's recommending that Irish laws be strengthened to make merely viewing child porn a criminal offense, claiming that viewing it drives demand for more such images.

Of course, if you read the article linked above, it sounds even worse. I'm hoping it's because the reporter, rather than the guy who wrote the report, is clueless, but it implies that the guy's report to the government said that child porn viewers are purposely using "caching" to avoid downloading child porn to protect them from legal liability. Except... caching is downloading. The way something is cached is that it's downloaded. So, if you accidentally go to a website that includes child porn, the images are most likely cached, meaning you're now guilty of a committing a crime. Yet, the article (which claims to be repeating what's in the report) suggests that caching is actually a nefarious technique used by technologically sophisticated folks to avoid legal liability. Apparently, the fact that almost everyone uses caching when they browse wasn't explained to someone.

Fighting back against child porn is important, but technologically clueless people going on a witch hunt isn't going to help things very much.

You would think that record store owners might be the folks most upset about the changing music landscape these days. And, indeed, we've seen the "big players" like Tower Records and Warehouse Music go out of business. However, many smaller independent record shops have figured out ways to take advantage of the changing landscape to offer something different to customers. In fact, some even say the real problem was the RIAA and its failure to embrace things like file sharing. Still, it's a bit surprising to hear the owner of one NYC indie record shop, Rockit Scientist Records, slam those who buy music legally:

"Anybody who legally downloads music is an idiot! You can get it for free, why pay for it? Download it illegally, who's going to catch you? Legal or illegal, they sound the same."

While the conventional wisdom of those who insist that file sharing is "theft" would also suggest that this would mean trouble for the record store owner too -- but he seems to recognize that there's still plenty of value in the physical product: the CD or vinyl for those who want it. He figures if people are going to buy music, they might as well get something tangible out of it -- and the real problem (again) is that the record labels artificially inflated the price of CDs. If they'd kept CD prices more reasonable, perhaps things wouldn't be as bad as they are for the CD market.

Obviously trying to deflate a possible Apple announcement about movie rentals, Netflix has announced a service for unlimited movie downloads that lets its customers stream as many shows as they can watch to their PCs. Netflix has been testing this 'unlimited' offering for a few months with its new subscribers -- and it's not exactly surprising that Netflix would have to offer an all-you-can-eat plan at some point, given its existing DVD-based service plans. But Netflix is still playing with the term 'unlimited' in that the downloaded movies are streaming, so presumably, unlimited actually means something more like "up to 744 hours of video" in a month with 31 days (if you don't stop to sleep or eat).

More interestingly, though, is that this announcement places Netflix firmly in the movie downloads business. Mailing DVDs will clearly remain part of Netflix for quite some time due to the lack of broadband penetration for many US customers, but the increasing costs of shipping physical media will likely doom that business. So now the questions of how to handle the distribution of digital data will really become a mainstream issue -- and a serious business test for Netflix. Will the delivery of streaming movies be hampered by the likes of Comcast and ISPs who compete with their own movie downloading services? Does the iTunes pay-per-title model make more sense than a subscription plan? Netflix faces a number of large competitors, as well as pirating consumers. On the upside, however, there is also potential to expand internationally if Netflix doesn't rely on the USPS.

Netflix is trying a few different tactics to support downloading, but its real threats may be the copyright holders who could giveth and taketh away the shows and movies. With around 6,000 titles available for streaming from Netflix, that's only around a year of straight watching if you actually wanted to watch everything -- and didn't need to sleep.

There's a new study out (via Michael Geist) about the relationship between peer-to-peer downloading and CD purchases in Canada. The authors found a positive relationship between downloading and CD purchasing. That is, those who downloaded more music also tended to purchase more CDs. It's important to keep in mind that correlation does not prove causation. In particular, I suspect that much of what we're observing here is simply the fact that people have varying levels of interest in music, and those who are more interested in music are likely to both download more songs and purchase more CDs. So these results by no means prove that peer-to-peer file-sharing isn't hurting the recording industry. On the other hand, it certainly belies the recording industry's simplistic claim that no one will buy their music if it's available for free on peer-to-peer sites. Clearly, there are a lot of music fans in Canada who have access to peer-to-peer networks and choose to pay money for CDs anyway. That might be because they want the extras that come with the physical CD, because they feel good about supporting their favorite band, or because they expect the audio files on the CD to be higher quality than the music they find online. Whatever the reasons, the recording industry should be figuring out how to capitalize on them, by coming up with new products that offer perks you can't get from a peer-to-peer network.

For many years, the recording industry has been able to convince the Canadian government that it needs to add a "private copying levy" to various forms of blank media, to reimburse the industry for any "private copying" that happens on that media. This is pretty questionable for a number of reasons -- basically amounting to a government tax to support a private industry and its inability to adapt its business model to the market. At times, this private copying levy can be an astounding 70% of the cost of blank CDs. Once mp3 players (specifically the iPod) started to become popular, the recording industry fought to have the private levy attached to those players as well. In late 2003, the industry got its wish -- but with a catch. A ruling found that the devices could be taxed, but if they were, then downloading unauthorized content would be seen as legal (uploading unauthorized content would still be illegal). A judge later overturned the iPod levy, but some in the industry have kept fighting for it, and the Copyright Board of Canada supports extending the levy to iPods.

However, in a surprise move, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (basically, Canada's version of the RIAA -- controlled by American record labels, of course) has come out against extending the private copying levy to mp3 players, admitting that if the levy is extended (even though it will send millions of dollars directly into recording industry bank accounts), Canadians may (incorrectly, in the view of the CRIA) start to believe that downloading is legal. Of course, some people pointed out this loophole in the recording industry's efforts to extend the private copying levy years ago -- but it seems that it just occurred to the powers that be. Once again, it's a case for the industry to be careful what it wishes for. The private copying levy makes the industry a ton of money, but does so at the expense of anger from purchasers of any blank media. Still, that anger is probably better than the anger generated by thousands of lawsuits against file sharers based on flimsy evidence.