Slashdot Mirror
RIAA CEO Speaks
Non-Newtonian Fluid writes "Hilary Rosen, CEO and el presidente of the RIAA, has a guest editorial over on ZDNet. Go tell 'em what you think in the talk back section!"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This notion baffles me.
What constitutes theft of music? Is it actually possessing a CD or file, or is it simply the act of listening to a song without paying for it? As a story earlier today demonstrates, the RIAA seems to think that they can approach any person who plays music (netcasters in this case) and demand payment.
So where are we? If we listen to a CD at a friend's house, are we thieves? If we play our music at work and others enjoy it, is this theft? This area is terribly fuzzy, but I am certain that the RIAA's angle is on the far side of ridiculous.
Your convoluted thinking and misdirected anger clearly indicates that you are having trouble dealing with the impending death of someone close to you. Someone you've loved for a long, long time. Namely, Mr. Intellectual Property.
That's right...Mr. Intellectual Property is dying. He is dying from something new. Something both dangerous and wonderful at the same time. He is dying from complications from an invention capable of both tremendous benefit and harm for mankind. Digital Technology.
Sadly, there is no known cure for "Digitization". Once Digitized, Mr. Intellectual Property loses the physical substrate that was supporting him, stabilizing him, constraining him and keeping him where you wanted him to be. Without this substrate, Mr. Intellectual Property becomes free. Free to roam about the planet at the speed of light (well, close to it anyway), free to visit my computer, free to visit my neighbor's computer, free to visit your computer, free to visit anyone's computer!
Once Digitized and allowed to roam free, Mr. Intellectual Property dies and is instantly reborn as Mr. Digital Content. Mr. Digital Content is wild and free and replicates endlessly. He is wiley, quick and stealthy. He is everywhere and nowhere all at the same time. In fact, you can't rope Mr. Digital Content in, nor fence, nor stall, nor bind, nor lock nor contain Mr. Digital Content in any way.
The point of my little story here Hilary,...love, is that to overcome your grief and anger you MUST surrender your denial and embrace this truth:
Say it with me now...
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
YOU CANNOT SECURE DIGITAL CONTENT.
The truth will set you free.
Dont agree with me? Need help?
Email me at mcswain@alanmcswain.com
Kisses.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
NPR is almost as objective as they get.
Basically, the story was this: copyrights in Russia aren't protected very well. Pirates sell CDR copies of music for much less than bands sell them for, and as a result, 90% of the music is pirated.
Artists end up spending more time trying to figure out ways to make money and to get the pirates to pirate less than they do writing music. The successful bands are forced to tour at a strenuous pace. Even the most popular band spends most of their money on instruments and have to record in a very cramped apartment. The bands that are playing are basically doing it because they really really love to make music, not because they care about being able to do more than scrape by.
Maybe this is a sob-story, but it's an accurate reprentation of the situation in Russia. Listen to the story yourself, I may not have told it completely accurately.
Anyway, Napster opens up the possibility that America will be like that. Maybe you don't think musicians should make the enourmous amount of money they do now, but I don't think anyone wants the situation to get quite that bad.
--
Secondarily, some (but not all) artists want to be paid for their performances. Again, Record Labels and the RIAA are actually superfluous to this end. They are merely ONE WAY that an artist can collect revenue, but not the only -or even the most desirable way.
RIAA would like to rewrite the rules so they and the Recording Labels are assured of a place in the upcoming scheme. They may succeed, but I hope that with computers, databases, micropayments and MP3 that a direct listener-to-artist method can be found that would satisfy those not wishing to buy, sell or perform their music via the Record Labels.
As an afterthought, why is RIAA saying that an MP3 is "copying of music?" An MP3 recording has much lower quality than a CD. It is "good enough" in most instances, but I think that basically an MP3 is something to be used as a preview for a CD you'd like to get. Making an MP3 of a CD is analogous to a casette recording of a radio broadcast.
Let's take her prose apart piece by piece, shall we?
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
In that case, I'll start looking for "download our artist's new album here, only $1/song!" sites at RIAA members' pages right now.
What? There aren't any?
Never mind then.
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Actually, this does describe a good chunk of Napster's userbase.
But that doesn't justify SDMI and watermarking. I make perfectly legal use of MP3s every day. So do thousands of others. Fight the pirate, not the technology.
[...] but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
I'll come back to that first point. Smashing Pumpkins, the Offspring, Chuck D, Elvis Costello, a host of artists on MP3.com, and Bob-knows-how-many indie artists are already offering their music on the Internet, sometimes even selling it. What's your excuse?
Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright."
Divx. SDMI. The "licenses" that people agree to when they purchase CDs and DVDs. Thank you, goodnight.
The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
For one thing...artists that sign with labels don't own their own music, do they Hillary? They just "work for hire" - their efforts end up being owned by the company.
For another...consider the word "artist". The root word is "art". People who create works of art don't always do it for money. Oh, I know many do, and I don't begrudge them that right - they deserve to get paid for their hard work. But I don't think the fall of the record cartel would wipe out the music industry. It would just take a new form, hopefully one without an oligarchy controlling the production, distribtion, marketing, and ultimately all the money flowing in and out.
Some people make music because they want to; that's enough incentive.
Finally, he asks, as though his hand was just caught in the cookie jar, "Are you so snow-white perfect?"
Didn't Courtney Love make the same accusation in her Salon piece?
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works.
Yes, Hillary. Individual's copyrighted works. Not corporations that try to get those individuals to sign away their copyright. More power to Elvis Costello for selling his back catalouge online, to Offspring for releasing the music and providing added value on the CD, to Smashing Pumpkins for releasing music they felt should be released when the label didn't want to let it out, to Chuck D for being forward-thinking, to every indie artist who puts up a website and sells CDs for the pure heck of it or to try and "make it big".
The tighter you squeeze, the more artists that will slip through your fingers. This isn't a prediction; it's already happening. It's conflict betweeen the artists and the marketing and control machines built around them that will destroy the industry far more than small-time MP3 copying.
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Mrs. Rosen,
You are absolutely correct, this is about theft, but not as you portray it. This is about theft of culture. The RIAA represents an industry founded upon the idea that it is ok, to steal our culture from all of us, then sell it back to us in a neatly shrinkwrapped package. For thousands of years people have made music, and only recently have people fooled the public into thinking that it is morally justifiable to say to all of us that we no longer have a right to participate in our culture, unless we pay a tax to Sony or BMG.
You constantly say that musicians will not make music anymore if they are not guaranteed return. Well, newsflash, they aren't guaranteed that now, never have been, never will be. That is not the mindset of a true artist. That is the mindset of a businessperson. Many musicians make music because they like to make music, and will continue to make music, just as they have since we lived in caves. Music is art, and our art is our culture. Sure, somebody can 'own' the Mona Lisa, but they can't charge people to appreciating it. Mozart made music, because that was who he was in and out - no other way around it - he was going to make music whether there was profit or not.
One way or another, we WILL take back out culture from corporations that seek to rape it for all the profits they can get, and when we do, the artists who produce the rich tapestry of art, literature, music and movies will STILL be able to put food on their table. Why, because people care about the musicians and authors, and they will tip them, and they will pay to see them live, and to own their merchandise, even the CDs - but the music will flow unrestricted as it did before corporations chained it behind an artificial wall of copyright.
You represent the amoral corporations who only have one goal - to make money. And that is counterproductive to the creative process. When the corporations no longer have direct control over the music, the biggest benefit will be to the creativity of the individuals who weave the tapestry of our culture - because they will no longer have to bend their creativity towards what makes the most money, they can once again bend it towards what is most artistically pleasing to them - which make a higher quality for us all (AKA no more backstreet boys).
Fight us all you will, but one day we will liberate our culture from you.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work.
Courtney Love said the exact same thing -- about the recourd companies.
I can spell. I just can't type.
If your tastes allow it, buy records from independent bands instead of pop sensations. The quality, individuality, and creativity of the music is almost always more evident in such labels, and you can feel good about the fact that no suit is getting rich off of your desire to listen to quality music.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Bach and Beethoven were definitely paid for their compositions. (I imagine Brahms was too, but I don't know for sure.) The people who paid them had the power to dictate what was to be composed, and when it should be ready. Bach lived in a time when the notion of appeasing royalty was still quite contemporary, and this was the purpose of his Musical Offering, which he hoped would result in a job. (IIRC, it didn't.)
Musical compositions were definitely recognized as the products (if not the belongings) of their creators, and I'd be surprised to learn that they weren't "owned" by somebody, either the composer or the person hiring the composer. I believe information sans owner is probably the historically new idea, not the reverse.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
It is extremely funny that the RIAA is trying to win this argument on moral grounds. Here's a group that passes stealth legislation to remove rights to works after death, makes music work-for-hire to minimize the artists' rights, refuses to pay record company royalties to artists, or any portion of the MP3.com settlement, markets violent entertainment to young kids while contributing heavily to the politicians expressing outrage, and also colludes on CD prices according to the FTC.
After all this, to suggest that they are the noble defenders of the helpless artists against the immoral, thieving public is just a bit surreal, don't you think?
>
> [a
Not really. We saw this played out for $150M during the mp3.com trial. It's the difference between an information-theory point of view and a meatspace point of view.
Hilary Rosen is thinking about swapping plastic discs that store a physical representation of music.
You and I are thinking in terms of swapping bits that store an informational representation of music.
Hilary has no problem with our swapping plastic discs, because the number of plastic discs remains constant after the swap. After thee swap, I can no longer hear the music on my piece of plastic, because the plastic's in your basement.
She's still got a big problem with our swapping bits, because me giving you my bits doesn't prevent me from continuing to use my bits. After we swap, we can both listen to the music encoded in both my bits and your bits.
(Indeed, the notion of "my" and "your" to denote ownership of "bits" in the context of swapping stuff is nonsensical, which is why Hilary gets angry, judges get confused, companies get sued, and geeks wonder what all the fuss is about, whenever people "swap CDs with their friends" from an information-theoretic point of view instead of a meatspace point of view.)
The record companies know how to sell plastic. They don't know how to deal with bits. They only know how to think plastic and scarcity. They can't think bits and plenitude.
Viewed this way, SDMI is merely an attempt to turn back the clock - to glue those bits back onto a piece of hardware, thereby making the bits scarce and consequently more valuable.
Won't work, of course. But at least now you know where she's coming from.
Hmm, where does one draw the line between swapping a CDs with friends and distribution to the masses online?
Of course people say, but I buy more cds now because of mp3s. Of course there will be a short term blip of people buying more cds because they are exposed to music they may not listen to before. But this is a short term blip. Why?
Portable mp3 players are expensive vs cd players (I can get a cd player for less the $50, an mp3 player will run me at least $150).
CD Players that play mp3 files are not mainstream.
MP3 players in general are a small market.
In a nutsell, if I want to listen to my music anywhere, my best chance is to put it on an old fashioned CD (read: buying it). When mp3's on cds become more common as well as better priced mp3 players come to market, we will see an exodus away from cd sales.
But when mp3 player prices become reasonable in price, (portable cd players can be found for less than $50, while portable mp3 players cost more than $150 and will be obsolete in a year because newer players will blow them away) mp3 players become more common to play from cd
bullshit. They tried PLENTY to stop people from copying tapes. What they got was a 1992 American Home Recording Act which specifies a thingie called Fair Use which says that as an American, you DO have the right to copy for non-commercial purposes.
It's *NEVER* been legally wrong. The RIAA mind-control goons just want us to believe that.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Bullshit. The costs of marketing these steaming piles of crap are what is making the execs go insane over the bottom line.
"The studios better stop chasing an opening weekend where they're spending 80' to make a dollar," says Jeff Berg of International Creative Management. Studio executives agree that marketing costs are crippling the business, but that doesn't mean star salaries don't take their toll."
- from Time
So I'm not allowed to download a couple of MP3s or stream a movie over the net b/c I might stiffle the profits that pay for the insane marketing machine that bombards me 24/7 with the most shallow and regurgitated media which makes me want to run to Siberia, just to escape it all?
Fuck. Let's all start downloading and stop paying for CDs and movies. Maybe the industries would collapse, like the Valentis and Rosens predict. But people were making movies and music before it was ever billion dollar profitable to do so - and they will do so again. Maybe the entities that rise up in place of the MPAAs and RIAAs will be more humane to the people who support them.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
The member companies of the RIAA are certainly not 'leading' sites like MP3.com when it comes to number of digital music downloads, or revenue generated. Several RIAA members don't distribute music online; those that do use the least innovative methods of digital distribution.
Consider my recent experience when I visited Sony Music's first online music offering: the Digital Download. I had to really want my Digital Download, because the mystifying site layout made it very difficult to find what I was looking for.
I finally found a list of under 100 single tracks available from Sony's entire catalog. The cost per download? $2.50. The file format? I don't have any fucking clue. I spent ten minutes on the site looking for indication of what I would be getting if I paid them money for their top-40 rotation music file. MP3? Liquid Audio? WMF? Who the hell is going to overpay for a music file when they don't even know what hardware or software is capable of playing the file?
So I am struggling to understand Hillary's definition of 'leadership' in online music. Ah, yes, I remember. RIAA member companies are leading all other companies in threatening legal action against artists that attempt to distribute their own music online.
Corby
I understand that people are pissed at the record companies. I have some sympathy with the view, my stomach turns every time I look at the prices of CDs in my local music stores. I don't know how a 50c CD with some similar amount in royalties for the artist ends up getting a 1500% mark up. But then, I don't know what the raw prices of many of the goods I buy are. And I don't know what's involved in creating a record company. I know Branson's original business model of using a record company to fund an airline was supposed to be to use the high turnover but apparently low profit of Virgin records to fund the high profit but needful of large loans Virgin Air.
But I digress. The issue I start to worry about is when /.'ers say they feel record companies deserve what's coming to them because they use a dead business model. The question I ask is, ok, they may well do so, but given that music was created by an artist on the understanding that they would be paid under a particular system, and that the recording industry funded the production of the music and putting into music stores across the country on the understanding that people who wanted to listen to the music, and own a copy themselves would pay them a once-off fee for a copy to use as they will, is it fair to then remove the viability of that distribution model from them, and enjoy what they produced for you under that system?
If people here were saying "Bastard recording industry. Rips us off. I'm not buying any more records", or "Screw them, I'm going to organize a boycott of Acme Records Inc.", then I'd have no objection. But to say "Hey dudes, your model where I have to pay you to listen to your music just sucks! I'm going to listen to your work, which I'll get for free from one of the few people who bought it, I'm going to exploit what you did, and I'm going to do that and pass on copies to all my friends, and not pay you a penny", well, that's something else? Someone has the right, unquestionably, to refuse to pay for something and not use it, but to refuse to pay and use it? Or to encourage others to refuse to pay and exploit it?
The artists and producers have, what I feel to be, a legitimate complaint that they didn't consent to this. They produced something on the understanding it would be paid for by those who exploit it. And Napster in particular was/is a business that has ignores the wishes of those who paid for the work done, be it through direct work (the artists), or through organizational work and investment (the producers.) It doesn't seem fair to me, and I'm not quite sure why so many on /. seem to believe the entire music piracy business is a cause to support.
See, the problem with that article is that it had very little to do with the real world. In our world (unpleasent place that it is), artists are in the business of exchanging music for money, and listeners exchange money for music. But the RIAA (and the recording studios the RIAA represents)...what are they around for?
Time was, a few years back, that both artists and listeners needed them. An artist might have a great song idea, but for that song to end up as a record or tape in my hands wasn't easy. Thus, we have the RIAA. But that is no longer the case. An artist can write, perform, record, distribute and promote a song, even an album, with no help from a recording studio. It's no wonder the RIAA finds this a little scary.
"...the recording industry -- whose business is finding new ways to make music available to more people..." Really? If this were so, I'd be first in line for nominating the RIAA and Ms. Rosen for a public service award. But it ain't, as Ms. Rosen knows as well as any. Of course, as everyone should know and expect, the RIAA is in business to make money. On the other hand, the best way to make music available to as many people as possible is Napster and bootleg CD-presses in China. I'm hardly advocating copyright violation, but Ms. Rosen apparently IS. Which is why her excellent article is...fiction.
Hillary,
Thank you for the great quotes and double-speak:
"Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright." The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music".
So what has the RIAA done to help protect artists owning their own music? The Sonny Bono Copyright protection act?
The RIAA has constantly fought for the ability of the recording industry to take away all of the rights of the artists over their creations.
Nice shot Hillary.
Chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
"The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it."
Right. The greatest composers of all time, such as Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms, would never have written music if there were no copyright -- hey, wait a minute, there WERE no copyrights. True artists would continue to create, because the act of creation is its own reward. What you really mean to say, is that leeches that make a living promoting, advertising, and distributing other peoples creations would no longer have any incentive to do so -- and would be forced to go out and get REAL jobs, rather than surviving by exploiting the creations of truly talented people.
Why do people persist in this fallacious argument, that without copyright, artists would cease to create? Artists created virtually all the the best -loved music, paintings, sculpture, and architecture before the legal pretense of copyright was even a gleam in some evil lawyer's eye. True artists would continue to do so without it. Of course, those are the exact same people that have refused to sell their souls to the RIAA in the first place...
It is positive to see Hilary Rosen open up to the world with an interview at ZDNet ;). Unfortunately, ZDNet is limiting in how users can interact and better understand ;) her position.
In reaching out to Rosen's extension of good will ;), perhaps Slashdot could offer to interview Hilary Rosen?
This idea, I think, is the key. If there were no copyrights, there would be fewer artists, and we all lose. (Yeah, you can argue that one, but a lot of people are only in it for the _big_ money, which you probably can't reach without the money-sucking corporate structure.) However, if copyrights are changed back to a "limited term", as they were originally intended to be ... suddenly, if the artists want to keep those profits rolling in, they have to keep on creating. It seems strange to me than someone should expect to be paid horrendous amounts of money for something they did 30 years ago. I really think that limiting copyrights (and then really enforcing them) would be the best way to deal with the opposing interests of artists and consumers.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
It really irks me that Rosen and the RIAA Gang are still trying to make it seem like they're the good guys. It's far from the truth. The major labels involved with the RIAA are the major culprits. They're the ones stifling creativity. They're the ones getting all the loot the musicians deserve.
Steve Albini, Recording Engineer, who's recorded albums for Nirvana, PJ Harvey, the Breeders, the Pixies, Helmet, Cheap trick, Jesus Lizard and Bush, just to name a few, wrote an excellent article entitled "The Problem with Music" for Maximum Rock n' Roll magizine in the mid-90's. While it's a little out of date and hence there's no mention of the internet-driven digital music craze, it definately outlines some of the major problems that musicians have to face when trying to get their music out to the people. Give it a read.
What follows is various passages and my responses to them. Yes I am just a bit cycinal. -- enjoy.
Kibo
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Do as I say and not as I do huh? Your industry has been robbing consumers out of their mind for years. The price of a CD has remained relatively the same since it's inception. Look at the price of a CD in 1985 comparied to today
Again, let's not forget the underlying issue. This is not a matter profits and losses or of one industry attempting to stifle another, but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
Not a matter of profits and losses??!?!... Isn't that what you've been complaining about? The only thing the RIAA is interested in is lining their pocketbooks. Your industry doesn't give two shits about the creative rights of your artists. Never mind the fact that you don't own any of the artist's songs THEY DO!
Clearly ignoring the intent of current copyright law and questioning the legal definition of "fair use," Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright." The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
It's quite obvious to me you want to replace ownership with rental. You've even gone so far as to demand that Radio stations pay royalty fees for on-line broadcasts.
An advancement in technology isn't wrong. Swapping CDs with your friends isn't wrong. What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works. That is what will ultimately hurt the evolution of online music-- a lesson Mr. Somerson should learn.
You didn't give up any blood sweat and tears to make any of the music your industry promotes. Telling me that you think swapping CD's isn't wrong is a bold faced lie... I think your suit against Napster is proof of that. -- how stupid to you think consumers are? You claim that swapping CD's isn't wrong, however it is prohibited by the DMCA. A set of Laws that your industry had a fair hand in writing. How can I respect someone who feels it's OK to violate laws that they themselves wrote?
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
If I steal your food for lunch, surely, I'm stealing. But if I could make "free" copies of your lunch to the extent that we could end world hunger... would that be "stealing"? Would it be unethical? Back in the old days, if I saw you hunting buffalo with a better method, I could copy it... is there something wrong with that?
Back in the old days, if you wanted to listen to music, you tossed a few coppers at a minstrel. If the minstrel sang a song and left, you could sing the song after he was gone. But today with copyrights, there are very few musicians around, and the recording industry, concentrated in a few companies, controls all, not the artists. Say what you will about how "necessary" copyrights are... blah blah blah, I've heard the arguments before. I don't see the system "working" at all, and that's the case you need to make.
Maybe a better compromise would be 5 years for a copyright. What have you done for us lately.
If you go over to ZDNET and offer your opinion in a talkback, please be polite and don't flame. We want to make a good impression and not seem like a bunch of pimply teens looking for ways to rip off the RIAA durint pr0n breaks
Hell they can't even tell good music from bad. They just use the shotgun method and hope they hit something that catches on. Ostensibly that's why CD prices are so high; you're subsidising the failed CDs with the price you spend over what would be considered a "Reasonable" profit.
Of course, other distribution/payment methods could arise. They know this, but they're not creative to come up with something themselves, so they just tie everything up in court until they can get a "Secure" distribution format in place. A format which won't deter the pirates, will eliminate fair use abilites for Joe Average User, and which will make it an order of magnititude for anyone not sanctioned by them to get into the business of distributing music.
I'm hoping that when they roll out that format, that the subsequent consumer revolt takes all these people's careers down the tubes. With any luck it'll be divx all over again.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A caveat: I have not read the ZDNet editorial in its entirety, only the "annotated" bits and pieces reprinted in the comments here on /. So, find a grain of salt to take with you if you decide to read further.
/. posts is the way they resemble many of the op-eds in my (old) college newspaper, where students would write about something that irked/pleased/bewildered them. These were generally a collection of gut reactions, with varying degrees eloquence framing their central arguments. What was lacking in most (though certainly not all) was a genuine understanding of the subjects being discussed. They were visceral, often knee-jerk reactions to circumstances and events.
/. takes on a political consciousness. To have an impact on issues, one must present a well reasoned argument, complete with supporting facts and trends, and counterarguments (credibly) disputing one's opponent's p.o.v.
/. readership, whether a majority or a very vocal minority (I don't know), disagree quite vigorously with the stance taken by the RIAA in the Napster case and other areas, often for good reason and occasionally with well supported arguments. But it does this "community" no good to see arguments such as "Beethoven had no copyright; why do the BackStreet Boys need it?" trotted out in support of this cause. (BTW, I browse at +3, so don't bother claiming that this was the "noise" half of the signal-to-noise ratio we discuss here so often.
What strikes me most about these (and perhaps most all)
This is, in a sense, what slashdot prides itself on, and perhaps it is not such a bad thing. Spontaneous initial discussions are almost by definition knee-jerk in nature, as they solicit people's immediate reactions to a piece of news ("MS did what?!? Those *&%#$s!") and go from there.
But it seems to me this is not an altogether advantageous trait when
Members of the
Perhaps unlike most of the posters (and non-posters here), I've actually met Hilary Rosen (for a few minutes, not long ago, with all this chaos in full swing). What strikes me most about the ZDNet article and the response to it here is the disconnect between her relatively moderate stance (my opinion, nothing more) with regard to the rest of the RIAA, and the unabashed extremism of this community.
I think we would all do well, certainly this "pro file-sharing, anti-corporate leeches" community, to make a good faith effort to understand the RIAA's real position on this matter and how it is evolving. Better information can only strengthen our arguments and thus improve the chances that our opinions will carry some real weight outside these walls.
jMC
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
wookin' pa nub in all the wrong pwaces
yet. As they have for decades, new technologies and business models will continue to transform how music is distributed, and the recording industry -- whose business is finding new ways to make music available to more people -- will continue to embrace them.
If the RIAA really was embracing new technology, they would not have attacked Napster and MP3.com, to name a few....They would've realized that Napster and MP3.com, having gone mainstream, have a huge share of the mp3 market...the RIAA would have developed a partnership with either system so that either lower-quality mp3s ofartists are available to listen (in order to hear their sound before purchasing the cd, as an mp3 at 64k is good enough to hear, but not worthy to burn and make a cd) and/or allow high-quality mp3s to be bought and downloaded...
THAT would be embracing new technology and "finding new ways to make music available to more people" nad still allow to artist to make money....
However, THAT would also mean that the RIAA (and it's members) would have to share much of the profits with the partner...it's easier to sue, force the company out of business, and then eventually use the same business model to get ALL of the profits, and call that "embracng new technology"...
--------------
It's satisfying, to me, to see some MAINSTREAM press, actually letting people talk and speak their views. I usually hate ZDNet, but this is the best talkback ever!
The flamage, the carnage, oh, the humanity!
I love it. I guess stuff like this is why I stick around this dump.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.