Slashdot Mirror
RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen to Become CNBC Commentator
alen writes "According to a story by the New York Post the CEO of the RIAA is stepping down. She is going to be an anchor on CNBC. Maybe this is going to signal a change in the way record companies think about file sharing?"
HR did not make the policy, she was just the mouth piece of the companies.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Fat chance, considering who wants to replace her!
Guess this probably means an end to those late night CNBC BitTorrents. Sigh.
June 19, 2003 -- Hilary Rosen, the outgoing head of the Recording Industry Association of America, has landed an on-air gig at CNBC, The Post has learned.
Rosen, who will officially step down from her powerful RIAA post at the end of the month, has inked a deal to be a commentator for CNBC, she recently told music industry executives in an e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The Post.
Her gig will begin Aug. 1. According to the e-mail, she will discuss politics on the network's evening show, "Capitol Report," and give commentary on the media industry on the shows "Power Lunch" and "Squawk Box."
"They are looking for me to do the larger picture on some of the content convergence and media consolidation issues and know that I have a point of view on many issues as a longtime advocate," she wrote in the e-mail.
She added that she will assist the network in its coverage of Congress and the upcoming presidential election.
Rosen, who has been the chairwoman and CEO of the RIAA since 1998, announced in January her intention of stepping down.
Tim Arango
Just like Cheney quit his CEO job to become VP of the USA and conquer up some oil for his buddies back at Haliburton so it is that Hillary Rosen will quit the RIAA to spread propoganda for her RIAA industry chums on the TV.
On one hand, most of the pieces I've read on the RIAA/Rosen have either directly indicated, or been chimed in upon, that Rosen was just a mouthpiece for the big bad record labels, who don't want you to be able to copy your CDs. She's been more or less a scapegoat/forerunner for a lot of negative ideas about what you can and can't do with your licensed recordings.
On the other hand, this story is posted with the question "Maybe this is going to signal a change in the way record companies think about file sharing?"
This seems rather silly, also noting that Rosen is stepping down to become a news commentator, aka a talking head, aka a mouthpiece. I have very little inclination to believe that Rosen has had, or will have any large influence on RIAA policy. Am I wrong?
-Greg
-Greg
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I really don't see how hilary rosen resigning is gonna signal any change in how the RIAA does business, if anything it might get worse. I can easily see her replacement being yet another lawyer headed shark from one of the big record labels.
If the record industry wanted to save itself, they'd drop the cost of CDs down to $8 or less and partner with someone like Apple to deliver a real legal digital music service. Then they might find a more sympathetic ear in regards to piracy.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hilary Rosen would become more open to digital media in general.
Afterall, she was simply the talking head for RIAA - when Hilary Rosen speaks out against P2P, it's not because Rosen hates P2P, but rather it's because the five record companies tell her to do so. I recall reading articles on Rosen quietly expressing frustration at times with the record companies' unwillingness to compromise or embrace new business models.
She obvious has a very strong domain of knowledge in the recording industry, and now that she's free from the shackles of being the public face of RIAA, I'm actually looking forward to hear her personal opinion on digital distribution.
What's the difference between NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC? And gee, do you think there's any conflict of interest in having an IP lawyer not only work, but anchor a media organization?!
Someday naming your daughter Hillary will be as favorable as naming your son Adolph.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
What's next? Perhaps CNBC will hire David Duke to do commentary.
Didn't Foxnews already do that?
"They are looking for me to do the larger picture on some of the content convergence and media consolidation issues and know that I have a point of view on many issues as a longtime advocate," she wrote in the e-mail.
Yeah, and her opinions, as before, will be wrong, wrong, WRONG!
(Who was the liar who told Hilary the public wants to hear more of her rants anyway?)
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
10. Mud-wrestle lesbians in Japan.
9. Box Lesbians in Japan.
8. Become a "consultant".
7. Start Rosen.com, publish a super duper blog and live off ad revenue.
6. Join Kathy-Lee Gifford on her music tour.
5. Write a book!
4. Star in Playboy's "Women of the Internet" issue.
3. Go into rehab.
2. Get married to Ted Turner- make lotsa babies!
1. Get a job with those scumbags at CNBC....
And that's not a good thing.
I saw a bit about Mary Bono wanting the job a few days ago. Here's a link to the wired story This can't be a good thing considernig the 1998 copyright extension bill bares her late husbands name.
"But once you've been inside of one of those ships for a while, you're never... quite whole... again. But you do as you're told!"
Now we get to hear this idiot wind bag on TV even more? On a regular basis?
$5 says it was a settlement. The RIAA caught CNBC people sharing music at work and rather than sue the pants off them, they offered her a show.
This is important! The people must know!
(want to piss her off? mod this post insightful!)
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Many of you keep saying Hilary was just a mouthpiece of the RIAA and had no hand in setting policy. You actually think that she might turn out to be some kind of ethical human being after leaving the RIAA.
Let me give you a bit of a wake-up call: if she were an ethical human being then she wouldn't have allowed herself to serve as the RIAA's mouthpiece for any amount of money. Any ethical human being with any concern for the public welfare would have rejected any carrots the RIAA dangled in front of them and given them the big "Fuck you". There are plenty of other jobs out there that deal with media and technology that wouldn't require a daily sacrifice of ethical principles.
No, this is seriously bad news. Now not only is she evil, but she's evil being pumped straight into homes on a nightly basis. It wouldn't surprise me if this move was secretly orchestrated by the RIAA so as to get someone with their bias into the mainstream media in an unsuspecting, insidious way.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Not that I'm defending all those PR statements she made, or anything like that.
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
Don't forget that CNBC is a venture between NBC and... Microsoft. Go to the CNBC page and see where you end up.
This post is dedicated to all of those
Next time, get all of the facts from your bosses before posting. Had you ever heard of Radiohead before getting your assignment?
Radiohead is a case study in the use of Internet promotion:
Radiohead's honour follows the group's decision to ditch traditional marketing methods for their recent album Kid A in favour of internet promotion.
That's from a winter 2000 BBC news article.
Radiohead is a long-standing Internet success story, and if they'd listened to your friends, they'd be making a hell of a lot less money today.
An increasing number of artists have found that distribution of MP3s via Internet Radio and the networkss your OwN3rZ want to get rid of plus touring and direct sale of CDs at gigs and via the Net is a perfectly reasonable way to make a living. One has to sell a lot less records to make a living when one is getting 90% of the gross profit off a $10 CD than 1% of a $20 CD. Search for Janis Ian on slashdot. She's been making records longer than you've probably been alive. Find out if she thinks the record industry protects the rights of musicians.
With respect to your. . . interesting interpretation of copyright law, was your omission of any mention of "fair use" in your post deliberate, or left out of the RIAA propaganda you obviously based your post on.
Speaking as a published writer, I certainly support reasonable copyright protection. I don't need my copyright extended to 50 or 75 or 1000 years after my death. I don't want anyone to destroy computers by the millions to "protect" my work. I don't want protecting my work to come at the price of eventually forcing consumer electronics development to move out of the US and if EU follows the US lead as it seems to be doing, following software development to India and China. If someone xeroxes a copy of one of my print articles at a public library, I don't want any of your buddies to burn down the library to "protect" my copyright.
Oh, BTW, I'm working with an independent musician now. I can't find any friends willing to host her work for P2P networks because they're afraid of attack by the people who you are being a paid or unpaid mouthpiece for. So promoting her outside the RIAA framework is more difficult. Tell your bosses "Thanks, assholes"...
I don't know if you are on the RIAA payroll or not. You certainly parrot their party line perfectly.
However, since you do such a good job of playing a mouthpiece for RIAA viewpoints, if you aren't getting paid by them, you're awfully stupid. Go to their site and apply for a job. Use your post as proof that you're good at spreading "the good word" in a hostile forum.
Perhaps there are even a few people stupid enough to believe you.
Tech Public Policy stuff