CEO of RIAA Speaks at P2P Conference

Sarcasmo writes: "Hillary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA ^? , spoke at length (PDF of Speech) yesterday, during the 'O'Reilly Peer to Peer and Web Services conference'. " Update: 11/08 02:15 GMT by H : Yeah, I removed the Rosen text. Sorry.

Comments

Hillary Rosen vs Courtney Love

[why-is-it]

Courtney Love gave a speech last year about the topic of music theft, and the roles that Napster and the RIAA play in that theft. A brief quote:

Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

The full text of Love's speech can be found here.

It is an interesting read, particularly if you contrast it with Rosen's (ahem) desire to protect the artists and ensure that the artists are fairly compensated...

I wonder if Hillary was able to keep a straigh face during her speech!

Re:Which came first

[meonkeys]

Here's one story

Ah, the sweet cloying smell of hypocrisy!

[HalfFlat]

Hillary Rosen says,

The question is whether they're [peer-to-peer networks] going to be used - whether they'll respect what artists create just like we in the recording business respect what the business sponsors and software developers in this audience create.

Note that she doesn't claim that they in the recording business respect artists or their work themselves. Courtney Love's rant on the piracy of the recording industry makes for educational reading. Later Rosen says,

Are the works of artists valuable? The answer, in my view, is a resounding YES.

And of course they are. Look at the profits of the major labels. The problem being of course, is that this is monetary value, and further, they are much more valuable to the labels than the artists once the rights have been signed away.

The language in the speech is emotive, as is to be expected. But the kiddie porn quote is surely beyond the pale,

The fact that I was invited means that someone out there knows that peer-to-peer technology is getting bad rap. ... The fact that it is also used as a transmitter of child pornography has not gone unnoticed by many federal and law enforcement agencies.

And the very companies that the RIAA represent publish and promote music with hate-lyrics.

We also have the old chestnut of referring to illegal copying as theft. Repeatedly. This should be plain enough, but many people seem to have bought the lie. Illegal copying is just that. It may well be damaging to the creators of the material (which is probably wrong) as well as to the distributors (which is not necessarily wrong - people don't have a right to make a profit, remember!). What it is not though, is theft. Let alone piracy. The debate on intellectual property is muddied enough as it is, without resorting to misleading language.

I think the most poignant quote though is,

But as long as you're looking for whom piracy really hurts, ask the guitarist in the coffee shop, or the group scratching out a living touring in a beat-up van.

This is so true. Sadly, it's the piracy of the recording industry - which has, among other things, managed to have artists' work reclassified as work for hire (!) - that is responsible for artists living in poverty while simultaneously having millions of CD sales. The term piracy is much more applicable to this sort of action; what these labels do is not illegal copying, but the wholesale transfer of rights from the artist to themselves using the big stick of exclusive access to mainstream distribution channels.

If you have an interest in the music industry and not yet read the Salon article linked above, you really ought. It's very educational.

PS: If you do want to support artists, there is always Fairtunes.

Nice try..

[StikyPad]

Unfortunately, just because she's against the RIAA doesn't mean she's in favor of P2P.

For those that chose not to read the speech in its entirety:

"I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today."

A wise man once said, "From what I can surmise, the speech dealt both with her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money."

Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to get paid, but let's be clear about where Ms. Love stands.

Re:Really good point

[Ian Bicking]

Artists don't go into debt to the people who download their music, and they don't sign over their copyright for the privilege.

The downloaders may not be giving compensation that they might otherwise have given. But they aren't taking anything from the artists. And even if they are freeloaders, they aren't taking anything from anyone else either. The RIAA is taking money from consumers, and they don't even have the decency to give decent compensation to the people who make it possible.

Re:Really good point

[Happy Monkey]

The RIAA is a monopoly.

Technically, a cartel. Otherwise, spot on.