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."
Gee, from the title it looked like it was a military defeat, but I guess this will do ;-)
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
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).
http://www.geekstyle.co.uk/ntkmart.cgi#Corrupt
It's linked from one of the articles
Who said Freedom was Fair?
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
It'd be nice if we could have this sort of debate and result happen someplace it really matters like Congress :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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
...why the debate is framed as free music v. the music industry. We can decide to dislike both sides, and still get free music -- by encouraging musicians to self-publish either samples or entire albums as freeware or shareware. For those without internet connections and CD burners, music stores could offer a write-your-own-CD services (and I think I've seen this in prototype?).
Up to now the recording studios have been like the cartoon syndicates -- a necessary evil because they control the production, distribution, and promotion of music, with staggering overhead. Why does a 25 CD cost $18, anyway, about what it cost when invented 20 years ago? How many non-geek consumers know about this profit margin, and how loudly would they complain if they did?
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.
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).
Interesting analogy. I have to agree with you: there is so much conflicting data that everyone seems to have made up their minds on the basis of their gut feeling. I imagine there isn't any way of resolving this.
However, I would think that we (the pro-filesharing crowd) could use this ambiguity to our advantage. The **AA wants to limit a powerful technology and impose some dubious laws. And they don't have any iron-clad statistics to back them up. It seems that the burden of proof should be on the **AA to show that filesharing definitely hurts sales. If they cannot show this -- and I don't think they can -- then all their technology-limiting plans should be rejected by the lawmakers. I'm not so naive that I believe this is going to happen, I'm just stating that in a perfect world this non-provable postulate that filesharing hurts sales should be a victory to us. There will always be people who have a "gut feeling" that this is responsible for the financial woes of the music and movie industries, but that shouldn't be enough to enact laws!
GMD
watch this
When you say "everyone" you mean the online community. My grandparents wouldn't have a clue what the hell peer-to-peer was, but they still buy and listen to music and that makes their opinion as valid as anyone elses, as far as I'm concerned.
"If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
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.
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!
Disclaimer: because of the poor write-ups posted, I don't have a good idea of what actually happened at this debate and how fair it was. With that in mind, consider the following theory: Hillary figures she can 'win' no matter how the debate turns out. She has a chance to talk to the crowd that are the biggest filesharers. This is her chance to hopefully convince them that what they're doing is wrong. With a little luck, she'll be able to convince someone in the audience who happens to be in a position of power regarding the computer facilities of the school. She figures if the debate is 'fair' that she's got a reasonable chance to getting her message across. She won't be able to convince those whose minds are already made up, but perhaps she can bring a few students back from the Dark Side.
Now consider the case of an 'unfair' debate. If the debate is 'not fair', perhaps some students will realize that and sympathize with her. But even if she isn't able to convince anyone in the crowd that her position is right and the whole debate ends up being a crazy show, she can then take a videotape or transcript of the 'unfair' debate with her to other people (like politicians) and use that to convince swing-voters that the pro-filesharing crowd is just a bunch of hooligans. She willingly goes into the lions' den to gain sympathy from others when she shows them her 'scars'. "I tried to explain my position and look how they treated me? They're animals!"
This is just a theory. But to characterize her action as either courage or stupidity leaves out another very real possibility: calculating.
GMD
watch this
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
This summer, I had the opportunity to help officate at a debate held at the Oxford University Student Union. This was for an XML course that was developed by a consulting firm that was presented at the University. During the summer, Oxford hosts a significant number of for-profit and non-profit organizations holding conferences, seminars, and the like.
The city of Oxford and the University are stunning. If you've never seen them, you're missing out.
The debating hall is laid out similarly to the House of Commons, which us 'mericans sometimes get a glimpse of on TV.
At the head of the room is the debate chairman, who presides over the debate and makes sure that the rules are followed. To his left and right are the Union treasurer and librarian. Since this wasn't an "official" Oxford Union debate, all three of those roles were held by participants in the XML summer course. I sat to the left of the chairman, and helped decide matters of debate procedure and scope. (Don't laugh; there actually was one matter to review.On the main floor of the debate chamber is the Secretary's desk. The Secretary likewise assures debate procedure is followed and assists the chairman in doing so.
On either side of the Secretary's table are the proposer of the motion, and the opposer. Each of them leads a particular side of the debate.
Around all of them are the seats for the participants, arranged on both the main floor and a balcony surrounding everything.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the debate hall are the doors. On the way in, they look like simple double doors. Only when you are inside can you see that over the right door reads a sign saying "Yeses", and over the left door "Noes." At the end of the debate all participants file out through those doors, their numbers counted by the Secretary as they pass. Then everyone files back in to hear the results read.
The Oxford Union is one of the oldest free speech organizations in the world, and certainly deserving of respect on that basis. The debating hall is a monument to civil society and free speech. The Union is also a completely private institution: a true union of, by, and for Oxford students.
Now, having said all of that, the fact remains that a debate at the Oxford Union is just a debate. It's not a UN Security Council resolution or a Supreme Court judgment. It's just the opinion of a bunch of people who happened to be in the hall at the time as to whether the proposer or the opposer made a better case for their side.
It's all good fun, and much needed at that. But let's not get all worked up about it.
It was somewhat amusing to see that you not only offer your own music for free download, but also music from several other bands. Something tells me, however, that the Dead Milkmen haven't given you permission to do this.
Now, I can understand wanting to share your own music, but I don't understand why you feel you should be free to share someone else's copyrighted material.
This House believes that 'the free music mentality is a threat to the future of music
Well, "this house" believes that it is rampant commercialism that is actually a threat to the future of music.
She was in a room full of people who buy and listen to music.
This is definitely NOT the place for an RIAA exec to be. They should be with other executives and the occasional politician. That way they can avoid the whole issue of customers and business models, and focus on what's really important: new legislation.
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?
>> Regardless, The RIAA has every right to pursue its goals (i.e., profit) using legitimate business practices
Bribing Congressmen to pass a rampantly unpopular law that criminalizes fair use copying rights does not fall under the heading of "legitimate business practices". Neither does deploying technological measures to make it impossible to exercise said rights.
I'm disgusted by how many so-called libertarians are so quick to jump to the defense of the RIAA when it's obvious they have no interest whatsoever in playing by the rules of the fair market. The market has sent a pretty unequivocal message that they want the middle man out of the loop, so the middle man tries alternately to make it either illegal or impossible not to play by their rules. Bleh.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
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?
It is good that these types of debates go on, but at this point how does this even matter? We all know Rosen is not going to be like, "Oh, I was wrong after all, music should be free for all." And nor is the opposite party going to say, "Damn, we are horrible people for stealing those poor people's livelyhoods from them."
No one is going to change their position. On top of that, this nice little debate is more or less useless. None of those students are congress people, and Berman is has shown his resolve. Nothing has changed in that exchange; we are still hurtling towards an unknown conclusion which this debate does nothing to address or even pretends to address. In the end, the students went and drank some beers and the 'big-wigs' went back home to their legal documents. This is an intellectual excersize and shows zero results other than some transcriptions and a couple webpages. We would be better off sending mailings to our representatives than listening to some nice, feel-good debate that made Rosen look foolish for a couple minutes.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
We all know that this is literally true. No one is forcing these people to sign contracts. I wish some of them would have been forced not to sign contracts, in fact. I'd have held the gun on Don Henley. If I'd have been alive then.
I'd have held two guns on Rod Stewart.
But on the other hand, if you want to be a music superstar, you have to sign a contract with a major label. Otherwise you don't get put on MTV/VH1, you don't get put on Clearchannel, you don't get put in the major record chains across the country who are penalized (by withholding of ad material and certain albums, or pushed-back release dates) for stocking music which doesn't come from a member of the RIAA.
So sure, no one is forced to, but you cannot "win" the game (assuming you are measuring success monetarily... at least it's a numeric metric) without signing with a major label.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Keep you hand up if you buy more music because of it"
Hmmm... heard Funker Vogt on shoutcast a few weeks ago.
Enjoyed it. Downloaded a few tracks via gnutella. Yup, this definitely is a group I like.
Went to Best Buy. WTF? No Funker Vogt. Went to CD Warehouse. Nope. Never even heard of them, let alone my fav Apoptygma Bezerk, VNV Nation, Front Line Assembly, etc. "Sure we have industrial..." as the salescritter points at the rap section (ugh... where do they hire these people from?).
So Ms. Rosen, how am I supposed to be a complying RIAA citizen when you won't even sell me the music?
As usual, it was off to cdnow.com, buy one of everything Funker Vogt, and wait for the UPS guy.
Conclusion:
1. I'm waiving money in your face but you won't sell product to me.
2. You can't seem to figure out how to distribute music worth a damn.
3. You keep signing a few worthless artists and pumping their music (while we still don't buy it), rather than understanding the market changed on you.
4. You and the radio broadcasters sign deals trying to limit airplay to the same crap you signed, but now the radio broadcasters can't find listeners and had to destroy Internet broadcasting before it destroyed them.
So, maybe there's another problem that explains why your sales numbers suck?
*scoove*
I'd also say that this was a stacked audience. Let's see, you have a bunch of college students that use p2p on a regular basis, many of whom were spreading anti-RIAA propaganda
I followed the discussions and preparations in the CDR, although I didn't go myself. I have to say that we were not at all sure that the debate could be won. Oxford is a very strange place, and Oxford Union is stranger -- a private members-only debating society which perhaps could be described as a little bit elitist.
As to why Hilary Rosen chose to go to an debate with students -- it is because of the prestige of debating in one of the oldest debating societies in the world. You have to dress up (black tie for men), you go to a special dinner with weird and ancient customs (if you've never been to an Oxford college, you have no idea!), and so on and so on. Take a look around the Oxford Union site.
Also, with a place like Oxford Union, this isn't some shallow debate. Rather it prides itself on getting to the bottom of the issue, with lots of intelligent minds on the job. If the RIAA's case stood on logical grounds, she would likely have won the debate. That is why this is a significant result! The truth of the matter is that even with all the conservatism of Oxford, Hilary and friends couldn't make their arguments stick.