CNET released an interview they conducted with the RIAA yesterday. The thing is though, the answers that CNET put in their story really did not match up to the questions asked.
For instance, take the following Question and Answer:
Q: Do your view your lawsuits, even ones where you sued a 12-year-old girl or a Boston grandmother, as a success overall and do you think the process is working?
Sherman: Yes. We’re feeling pretty good. There will be the opportunity for business models that are consistent with P2P networks (such as demo versions or low quality). There have been a lot of conversations recently about ad-supported models.Bainwol: Now there is additional legal clarity.
Q: How useful has the NET Act, which makes not-for-profit copyright infringement a federal crime, been?
Sherman: Did it have an impact? Sure. Anything that increases risk would have an impact. The only thing that has an impact is: “What does it matter for me?” When we’ve done surveys, the lawsuits are the No. 1 or No. 2 reason for why people have changed their behavior.
See how the answers are so disjointed to the question? I can sort of see a mild relevance, but its a stretched and confusing one at best. Now techdirt has already gone ahead and pinned the blame on the RIAA. I’m wondering whether its CNET’s reporter.
The reporter asked very good questions, some that we’ve all been wondering (while subvertly pushing a certain point.) But I question how it collected the answers – the answers here seem like snippets of longer conversations. Nonetheless, it is premature of me to pin the blame on anyone.