Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen Defeated at Oxford Union
yogi writes "Oxford University Students' Union had a debate last Thursday, titled This House believes that 'the free music mentality is a threat to the future of music.'. Ordinarily, not too exciting, but since it is the Oxford Union, they get Hilary Rosen to speak. She lost the debate, and had to have pictures like this taken. Read the writeup at NTK, or a more detailed one here. I especially like the bit where she asked all the file downloaders whether it made them buy more music."
Hilary Rosen asks "Put up your hand if you download and burn music" (most hands go up). She then asks "Keep you hand up if you buy more music because of it" (many stay up). She gets worried and immediately asks some different and confusing set of people to put their hands up, causing everyone to look miffed, and everyone putting their hand down)
I call BS on this. What was the "different and confusing" set she asked for? I have a feeling it was the interesting part of this exchange... pop culture already tells us we should raise our hands for these first two questions.
I agree. It's getting to the point that EVERYONE has chosen sides and the resulting debate has a decidedly religious flavor (ie, no one will ever switch sides from this point on).
I really feel that the music industry has, quite simply, realized that they're on the out-and-out, so to speak. With the advent of faster networking technologies over the past few years, and the number of kids attending 4-year colleges (all of whom have broadband connections), the industry truly feels that they lose $0.20 with every *.mp3, *.ogg, and *.wma file that's exchanged via TCP/IP.
Here's some sage advice (from here originally): "If you really want a change, don't vote for either party -- vote Libertarian if you're on the right, Green Party if you're on the left, and independant otherwise. Both parties are in the pockets of big business, and that's bad both for those who advocate freedom from the government as well as those who despise deregulation.
The more we have third party, the closer we get to fairer, European-style representation."
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
to go to a university only to face a crowd of filesharing student can either be pictured as stupidity or courage, so let's at least give her that: she was coureagous. She ran into the wolves house!
About the filesharing issue? Depends on wether you recognize intellectual property as a valid concept or not...
http://www.pageliberale.org
Maybe to us, but to normal folks, especially those who are from 40-70 (and who control most of our culture, even if we'd rather not remember that) it is not at all an open and shut case--I've had to explain and discuss these issues numerous times with parents, uncles, coworkers, etc.
We may know how we feel, but mainstream culture still can be swayed, and the RIAA knows that.
You so sure about that?
The real question about the recording industry is do they have calculators?
A tape or lp at the time of the cd switch was far cheaper than an CD. But now that CD production is more efficient the cost should have come down some. But it hasn't. Cds are still in the 16-20 dollar range where as tapes at the same time were in 10-12.you think that cd's would have dropped?
Why don't we buy CDs? Because the price is prohibitive. On top of that the RIAA has made no friends with fans with the crackdowns and wacky copyright protection schemes.
Now the MPAA is doing the same thing with DVDs. And you know that the DVD won't drop either.
"Beware the squirrels"
This all reminds me of my old boss; 70+ yr old Jewish man from NYC who used Napster to download old speeches (Winston Churchill was his favorite) and such other things that were hard to find anywhere locally (library etc). He never once used it for music.
I am not sure if it is quite the same with the MPAA. It seems that the RIAA price CDs equally. DVDs have different prices, frequently depending on the studio that releases them, which I think the end will be more beneficial to the consumer.
It is too bad that the artists that already have made a fair amount of money (and that are fairly famous) don't start there own label that sells music online by the song (yes I know about rhapsody, but they require a monthly fee) or that sell the discs for $12 bucks instead of 20.
In fact, wouldn't it be COOL if you could listen to the songs online at a low bitrate, then buy the cd, and while it is shipping to you, it lets you download the album in your format of choice.
--Joey
For all of these reasons, Valenti isn't going to need to make a case for the movie industry at any time in the near future. Rosen does. Rosen has to sway public opinion if the RIAA is to reduce what it sees as piracy and stolen sales. For the MPAA, there's already legal protections that can be easily invoked against any pirate, and whereas, for example, an author of audio ripping software can point to fair use defenses, DVD "ripping" software authors can, and have been, prosecuted under US criminal law.
You know, while I think she's misguided on the subject of whether MP3 sales have the negative impact she seems to believe, I can't bring myself to think of her to the same degree of hatred as what appears to be the average Slashdotter's attitude. She, for example, has been a major force for protecting musicians against Congressional attempts at censorship or creating censorship systems, whereas Valenti himself oversees the major censorship body for the movie industry, and generally relies on the individual studios and directors and actors to make the case against mandated restrictions. On a surface level, the argument "Why would you buy something if you already have the MP3?" is a hard one to give a definite answer to - you can only, in the end, argue that the side effects - exposure to more music, a desire for higher quality, etc - are (probably) positive.
To that extent, Rosen can't be criticised for not being wholly convinced.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You can always spot a poor debater when they ask a question they do not know the answer to. That is always the key: reduce the argument to only the points where you are unequivocally right and your opponent is not. Of course your opponent is trying to do the same thing.
And the big "raise your hand" thing doesn't prove anything. It is like "proving" someone has no business talking about African economics if they have never been there. It is all opinion and subjective, like those CNN polls.
In the end I just see this as broadening the rift. She now can be assured that most students out there are "pirating" music and thus beyond communication. Likewise everyone else here is treating this like it means anything. The RIAA will probably just go and get more federal signatures while we sit around feeling all good about this "victory". And its that sort of thinking that will probably mean we will never get the compromise we ask for.
Demanding total victory is asking for total defeat.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Ya know, as much as I love to see Hillary Rosen gagging on her own foot, this isn't really news. She went up against an audience of students--people who typically have very little money and are hostile toward big, greedy corporations--and lost a debate by popular vote. Big deal. I'm sure that most of the people who showed up were there because they already felt strongly one way or the other.
What I find strange is that she accepted this debate in the first place. Surely she must have known what she was getting into?