I love Steven Pearlstein's columns in The Washington Post; he's particularly good on trade and international business issues. So I was a little disappointed with today's column on the XM-RIAA suit, in that it oversimplifies the issue. (For a more complex discussion of the topic, see the transcript of our recent Congressional Seminar on the subject). Mr. Pearlstein then conducted an online chat on Washingtonpost.com, and while he didn't accept my question on the Audio Home Recording Act and how it fails to adequately compensate artists with its ceiling and easily avoided tariffs, he did make some statements there that were more agreeable. Still being in a good mood from my recent trip to the Jersey shore, I'll focus on the positives:

* Compulsory licenses are evil. My words, not Mr. Pearlstein's, but he makes clear in the online chat that his real problem is with government involvement in rate-setting. I couldn't agree more. I also suspect some at the RIAA would tell you they'd like to have free market negotiations, because they have content that people would pay to access.
* Law suits are evil. More his words, not mine, but I wasn't thrilled to see RIAA sue XM. I understand their reasoning, but as I have told anyone who will listen (and even those who won't) my hope is that, like many suits, this one gets settled. Mr. Pearlstein in the online chat said he anticipated a settlement that involved a licensing rate (more than the zero XM is paying now for distribution) but less than a full download license. That is exactly what I would like to see, and what I think the market would produce on its own without licensing regimes.
* Profits are not evil. I'm paraphrasing Mr. Pearlstein here, from his online chat. A questioner went off on the evil recording industry trying to make more profit off the backs of consumers; Mr. Pearlstein said (as any business columnist should) that making a profit off of consumers is what most every business does. Mr. Pearlstein's concern was making money through use of the government. We at PFF and IPcentral echo that, seeing examples daily, but I think it's not directly applicable to this case and suggests a lack of understanding of the myriad licensing regimes that exist today in music (I myself often get confused). While he clearly thinks little of the recording industry, at least he doesn't harbor an irrational hostility to the idea of making money for one's work the way many in the CopyLeft seem to.
* Hank Williams Jr. is irrelevant. Mr. Pearlstein was chastized by two online chatters for not being aware of the existence of that annoying guy who sings at the start of Monday Night Football games. I wish I shared Mr. Pearlstein's ignorance; I'd be even more happy then.