Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen Will Step Down As RIAA Head
Phoenix666 writes "NYT Business reports Hilary Rosen is leaving. Question is, what head will spring from the Hydra next? Could this signal a shift in the RIAA's tactics? The article reports 'Rosen's departure comes as the organization sought to soften its image among Internet consumers, many of whom viewed the RIAA -- and Rosen personally -- with antipathy over incessant pressure for crackdowns on sharing digital music over the Internet.'" A press release on the RIAA site says that Rosen will leave at the end of this year.
"Don't wish for a new enemy, you won't know what tricks are up its sleeves!"
If by "antipathy" you mean "violent hatred", you win! It missed a reason why I view them this way though - the fact that they have turned the popular music scene into a mechanical whore for the guys upstairs.
Can they soften their image? Aren't they surpassing Microsoft and Kim Jong II on the list of evil things we hate?
Replacing Hiliary Rosen with someone nicer won't cut it.
The RIAA's actions are the very thing that define the attitudes of consumers towards it. Their propaganda is irrelevant to the people they are trying to address. This is not due to the vehicle they are using to deliver their message, but the very simple and plain fact that their message is not one that people agree with, nor is it one people will agree with given time.
Nobody likes Hiliary Rosen because of what she represents. It was never a personal issue. Though many people have directed their anger towards her, it was never at her as an individual, but rather as the figurehead of an organization who's goals are in opposition to a large percentage of the public.
The RIAA is trying the same tactic the U.S is going to try with the Middle East. Ratchet up the propaganda to people who know its propganada and despise it, attempt to paint a picture of things that is directly at odds with what people see and experience every day, all the while continuing with the same actions the people hate.
This is a move that is a desperate gamble by the RIAA to win a struggle they are losing. An act that has more to do with not knowing what else to do, than a concrete plan based in logic and well-thought out strategy.
This is a profound action by Ms. Rosen. The music industry is in serious trouble. The movie industry can bring us value and epics, such as 'Lord of the Rings', and DVD videos priced at 14.99. Most people I know would rather buy a DVD, and most are a good value.
On the other hand, what can the music industry bring us? What value do they have anymore? CD prices are way too high, and the value they have in most people's eyes are low. You cannot really produce an epic in terms of music anymore. All the good stuff has already been written and produced (think the 80s and 70s).
Her stepping down is waving the white flag, which states, I'm tired of fighting a losing battle, and I know our days are numbered. I think that after she came up with/annouced the zany levy the ISP, she realized that she could no longer carry on.
Your specific example is also wrong in Europe where terms are also at artist death + 70 years, but were not extended retroactively.
music industry will regain their focus on improving quality of music production rather than setting prices for maximizing profit and accusing youngsters not paying enough.
:)
I compare the sound quality of CD now and ten years ago...nothing improved. And then they blame us for listening to sub-quality electronic music. Shame on them. Give us something that worth buying.
Think I should stop ranting, this is the day of celebrating.
I know there's the cost of the production of the album, the marketing, etc., but over 8 million copies, those costs are negligable.
What percent of albums even sell one million copies? What's a record company supposed to do with an artist whose album has a slim chance of even going gold?
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Here's a clue: You will alienate less people if you put out better music. Woot Woot, the clue train is arriving, and this incarnation of the Pop train is finally leaving."
Every generation claims that music was better when they were young. Things are no different today. You just got old, that's all. It has nothing to do with the RIAA
"Here's another clue: We all have CD burners. Besides the obvious ability to copy music CD's, what you don't realize it has taught us is how cheap CD's truely are. I know there's the cost of the production of the album, the marketing, etc., but over 8 million copies, those costs are negligable. People hate you because the last CD they bought cost them $18.99 and the last CD they burned cost $1.76, including the label, the insert, and the case."
Copy a hundred cds and throw out 99. Then you'll start to get the picture of the economics of marketing music. Oh, and don't forget studio time, promotion, actually paying the artists, salaries of employees, printing costs, etc. Maybe it's not $18, but it's a lot more than $0.50, or whatever you pay for blank cd-r's put the cd burner divided by the number of cds you burn.
Vote for Pedro
She stepped down to spend time with her children. Yeah, right! She has harmed her industry beyond repair by trying to kill the free promotion of file trading, and calling paying customers thieves, all to slay a paper tiger called "piracy." They suggested that she should leave quietly. Expect more executives to be be forced out as more and more people get tired of their crap, and stop buying CDs.
How ya like dat?
(big explosion of smoke and fire, munchkin geeks scatter at the sight of Valenti in witches' drag)
I thought you said the wicked witch was dead!
Ah, but we killed the wicked witch of the east; this is her sister, the wicked witch of the west. She's much worse.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
but you don't think this has anything to do with double didgit declines in music sales do you? Money talks, insulting your customers, market research number crunchers, lawers and persuing pipe dreams of "pay per play" has walked. Let the good times roll, baby, make some music or die!
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I seriously think that is a great suggestion, and
I bet that she would agree to it. If she cares
what the
such a move could do nothing but improve her image.
What could she possibly have to lose by agreeing
to such an interview?
Fine, stop making CDs and allow people to download them cheaply and burn them themselves. Word of mouth is better than marketing, and there aren't any printing costs or sales employees. The point is we don't need this system any more, the internet has the potential to do everything much more efficiently and the RIAA just want to maintain the status quo for their own benefit
That's slashdot priorities for ya.
The cake is a pie
I should probably post this AC but what the hell.
I'm no fan of Hillary Rosen's tactics as head of the RIAA. But it should be pointed out that she's the head of a lobbying/representative group. She does the bidding of the CEOs whose companies pony up fat wads of cash for the services of the organization that she heads. In a recent Wired article (which will be online tomorrow according to the website) she said that her job is basically to do all the unpopular shit that the record execs want her to do, while shielding them from the criticism. In other words, she's a paper tiger. Her successor will be one as well. She and the RIAA are doing the bidding of the likes of Sony, Vivendi Universal, AOL-TW and all the others. I don't see anyone giving Sean (Pissy) Coombs a hard time about the RIAA's tactics but he's as culpable (as the head of a label that is an RIAA member) as Hillary Rosen is.
If you don't like the shit the RIAA is pulling (and you shouldn't), stop buying music from companies that support the RIAA. Of course, after seeing the list here you'll have quite a hard time finding any music to buy.
BFL
There's one thing computing teaches you, and that's that there's no point to remembering everything.
--Doug Copland
As you say, we have 11 months to go. It's unusual to keep a lame duck CEO kicking around for that length of time. Then again, maybe they have an especially vile agenda and want her to act as the lightning rod for a while longer.
The search for a replacement ought to be interesting. RIAA leader is one of the toughest jobs in the world today; right up there with Saddam's travel agent.
I don't think that's true. I have a radio in my office, tuned to one of the "modern rock" stations. I left it off for a year, just left it sitting on the shelf after I changed departments, turned it on today and it still sounds like the SAME OLD SHIT! A year later, and I can't really find a difference or anything new to like. Maybe I'm getting old... it's possible, but I doubt it. Give me some new REM that makes me think, maybe I'll reconsider. The music on the radio is bullshit. I don't listen to it when it's on the radio (and sort of free) and I sure as hell wouldn't waste my time downloading it. The record industry is targeting pre-teens and early-teens that spend their parent's money. Not smart? No, very dumb, but that's what they're doing in the short term. Geeks and techies aren't their market, guys, they want people that "tune in" to whatever the BS station is in your town. We are not their market. At least not now. And it's not because we're nostalgic, at least in my case... I have a few Judy Collins records that I taped... but I enjoy listening to that and what's on the radio sucks. Period. Although most of my MP3s are goth metal. Here's the point: fuck hillary. fuck the riaa. Support your local bands; if you like the music buy the CD (and tip your bartender). Some people just like to make music/software because they want other people to enjoy it... and if you do, give them the $5.00! And then go up and say Hi, and tell them why you did so... you'll feel better :)
You're forgetting about ticket sales. For the cost of making "Signs", the studio got something they could show in the movie theatre, and something they could slap on DVD. By the time you go out to buy it, they've most likely already made back their initial investment (and then some).
With an album, on the other hand, people wouldn't pay to go to a concert hall nad have the studio recordings played for them. Instead, they (quite reasonably) demand a separate, live performance from the artists who made the album. That places constraints on both how many performances can be done (no musician can match the 3264 different venues all showing Signs on opening weekend) and it places constraints on how much money the investor can recoup (as concert sales are generally regarded as the area where the artist, a key part of every single live performance, can attempt to make back some of the money that crappy recording contracts cheat them out of).
Overall, it boils down to two different economic models. You could've just as easily compared an album to a computer game with a modest budget, and you would've come out favoring the album. Sure, at the base level, it's all intellectual property, but the details are a key part of the pricing. (And I haven't even really touched on supply and demand issues, which further differentiate the products.)
Mod me up for being redundant if you will, but if the recording industry can sell music CDs here in Asia for $9 and still make a profit, why can't they do the same in the US?
OK, you can't compare dollar for dollar in different markets. What is the average rent in a mall, in USD, in Malaysia compared to Manhattan? What are the average wages in those two locations? Electricity, taxes, price of a cup of coffee, it all factors in. Because you aren't paying US$9 for a CD, you're paying whatever your local currency is.
I fully agree that CDs are way overpriced (esp. in the UK) but the argument that products and services are cheaper in hard currencies if you buy them in soft currencies is irrelevant.
Lay off, man. Of all the people who have been bitching, Metallica and the other artists are the only people who deserve to be listened to. Just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't put them on the same scale as Rosen and Valenti. At least they have some right to the music, their creation. Personally, a few people I know stopped downloading Metallica MP3s when they asked. It's just respect for the band and their music. If you don't respect the band enough to follow a simple request of "hey, don't steal our music"(granted, with a couple things for napster to do, but that's another thing altogether), why are you still listening to their music?
It's been a long time.
So?
Look, if the only way to break even (or make a decent profit) is to raise the prices above what the customer thinks is reasonable, then the proper thing to do is go out of business. The proper thing is not to whine about how much it costs to sell your product, in the hopes that the consumer will give you bonus sympathy dollars, instead of saving their money and getting better goods and services for lower prices elsewhere.
Not to mention the fact that DVDs cost just as much to manufacture and distribute, and the content costs several orders of magnitude more to produce... by your reasoning, Black Hawk Down should cost five or six times more than the its own soundtrack, instead of almost exactly the same price.
But my first point is so important that I'm going to repeat it: if you can't sell a product at a price that people will pay, get out of the business.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.