Quite a flattering lead-in for the subject. I can sense the slant right out, but I stuck with the article for content. I follow the Safe Harbors argument closel

Quite a flattering lead-in for the subject. I can sense the slant right out, but I stuck with the article for content. I follow the Safe Harbors argument closely and have several opinions on the matter, but I'll just point out something to keep in mind: >"It involves continuously finding more ways to save and downsizing. And trying to keep ahead of the decline basically," Rosenthal says. "I had 11 people working for me in the '90s and now I have two part-time people working for me." Rosenthal is describing the absolute zenith of the profit making in recorded music that coincided with the CD becoming the dominant - and EXTREMELY PROFITABLE - format. Pining for that is like saying it's hard to make a decent living in the horse-carriage and buggy whip business. Time moves on, being disingenuous doesn't make me feel sympathetic to him. Rather, it sounds like the same old same old "We're getting ripped off, rather than doing the ripping off!" which is the earned reputation of "music business" in the grand scheme of things. Granted, I think YouTube is garbage for having a 3rd party that - apparently - I have to pay $14.99 per release to have the Content ID system work for me. I'm still looking around and knocking on doors, but it makes me mad outright just thinking about such a strong-arming of "Pay us a larger sum than you could possibly hope to recoup from our system, which is, you know, able to identify your stuff but we won't until you pay us." That's a different issue than Safe Harbor. I like Safe Harbor. I think, practically speaking, both sides are simply arguing the most extreme perspectives, which leaves a lot of middle ground. I prefer a reasonable middle-ground with the DMCA et al, and with DRM over regarding the bunniestudios case. I know I'm in the minority, because I seem to dislike both parties' tactics and rhetoric equally.