Loving the iPod

The point that J.H. Tompkins seems to make despite himself is people who love music love the iPod ["What-Why-Where Pod," 2/4/04]. I love it because I can have close to my entire collection with me anywhere I go. It doesn't replace my collection, but supplements it and gives me more access to it. The iPod is a tool that makes ownership of music a better experience. I'm the consumer that Allen Horrocks and Andee Connors love. I buy CDs at my local record store, not just for albums that are hard or impossible to find elsewhere but because the experience of looking through stacks of music is irreplaceable. I keep the CD on the shelf after loading it onto my iPod. I can't imagine any music freak keeping only digital versions of albums. I mean we are, after all, collectors, and the idea of keeping a collection exclusively on a hard drive seems both counterintuitive and risky. Of course iTunes has its place. I'd never buy the Kelis album, but for 99¢ I can rock a house party with "Milkshake."

As Tompkins states in his article, he fell in love with iTunes when he was miles from a record store. I wonder how he would've felt if he was a five-minute bike ride from Aquarius and the joy of flicking through stacks of CDs or vinyl.

Peter Funk

San Francisco

P2P and copyright

I read Annalee Newitz's article quoting me in the Bay Guardian of Feb. 4 ["Yaaar"]. Ms. Newitz misrepresented my viewpoint, and one of her premises is totally untrue. I would like an opportunity to set the record straight.

First, it is unfair to imply, as Ms. Newitz did, that I "agree" with the side of the P2P networks in the debate. I do agree that the basic premise of P2P – to promote sharing of content, as an alternative to the media industry's one-way distribution model – has value that media companies are not exploiting. However, it is misleading to equate that with saying that P2P networks should therefore be allowed to persist in what they are doing without addressing their roles as conduits for large-scale copyright infringement. It is like saying that credit cards are a convenient way of paying for things, therefore there should not be any fraud detection or prosecution.

Secondly, it is just plain wrong to suggest – as the article did – that the software vendors are in the digital rights management game for the money. Just ask any of the dozens of DRM software vendors that went out of business over the past couple of years because media companies would not pay for their products (among other reasons, of course). On the contrary, DRM costs platform vendors like Microsoft, Apple, and Sony money. Vendors like these want to sell their core products (PC software, iPods, DVD players, etc.). They include DRM-type features because otherwise media companies wouldn't agree to make content available in those formats. This economic imbalance is another factor keeping DRM technology from advancing to meet consumers' legitimate needs.

Bill Rosenblatt

GiantSteps Media Technology Strategies

New York, NY

Annalee Newitz responds: I did not say Bill Rosenblatt "agreed" with the P2P networks' side – if indeed one can say P2P networks represent a "side." The section of the article in question had to do with whether the music industry was losing money as a result of P2P networks. A P2P analyst said the industry wasn't losing money, and Rosenblatt did agree with this assessment when he said, "No one has put any figures on the industry's revenue loss due to consumer piracy that have any credibility."

A win for clean energy

I write to commend the Bay Guardian for its diligent coverage of the California Public Utilities Commission's actions over the last several months relating to public power and green energy.

In a decisive win for community-choice and renewable-energy advocates, the CPUC voted 5-0 Jan. 22 to approve a power purchase framework that allows utilities four years to build their reserves to between 15 and 17 percent. This unanimous decision by the CPUC will not only help to keep energy costs down but also enable more time for community efforts in progress to line up renewable energy supplies.

San Francisco and dozens of other California cities seeking to escape high-cost, long-term power contracts can now proceed to develop renewable resources and energy efficiency technologies, rather than be forced to rely on more costly energy that relies primarily on natural gas-fired generation.

"This is a day we have been waiting for since September 2002, when former governor Davis signed both the Community Choice and Utility Procurement bills into law," said Local Power founder and director Paul Fenn.

Thank you, for standing with us and recognizing the importance of community choice and renewable energy to the economic and environmental health of San Francisco and the entire state.

Carol Migden
Chairwoman, State Board of Equalization

San Francisco

For the record

In last week's Letters we misidentified the academic affiliation of Lev Osherovich. He is a biochemist at UC San Francisco.