Slashdot Mirror
Mitch Bainwol To Succeed Hilary Rosen As RIAA Head
bmarklein writes "The RIAA has announced that it has named Mitch Bainwol, former chief of staff to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, as chairman & CEO. He replaces Hilary Rosen, who left earlier this month. This confirms the speculation that the RIAA would appoint a well-connected Republican (Rosen was a Democrat)." Several readers have submitted links to CNET's coverage as well.
Update: 07/29 12:30 GMT by J : Lobbyists wield incredible power nowadays, and Slate's report on why was enlightening. Here's
part 1
and
part 2.
Includes lyrics to the rap recorded for Rosen's going-away party by some of the most powerful people in the world: "Who wants the job of Hilary Rosen? / How 'bout the dream team of Bono and Tauzin?"
Well, being a republican at least means that you folks in the US are less likely to have to foot the bill for his jackboots.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Former Chief of Staff? Why did Bainwol get fired from / leave his previous position?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
This RIAA appt. is blatant politicking. I bet if ;) the democrats regain control, they will replace Bainwol with a Rosen clone. Sigh... I am a Republican but on this issue they are pissing me off...
----
In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
You know this is a bad thing. He's a right-wing Republican; the GOP is pro-rich, pro-big corporations, and pro-personal interest.
Expect even more tyranny from the RIAA.
I shudder at this prospect... not that the old person was good, though...
"What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?" Bainwol said in a statement.
Who said property rights was a great American tradition? And rewarding for whom? Certainly not for us.
He hasn't even DONE anything yet.
Hit me.
I had a sucky sig.
As opposed to the previous administration who signed into law the DMCA and had the most pro-censorship bored housewives club (Tipper Gore) - not to mention Censorship Joe Lieberman himself. Also note who the media companies are cozying up to. Hint: it ain't the Republicans.
I'm not a member or supporter of either major political party, but now I guess I should vote democrat, during this upcoming presidential election. That way maybe partisan politics will work to a benefit, and a democrat president will shoot down whatever laws the RIAA lobbyists try to create.
(Now that I mentioned politics, I'm readying for flame)
SuPz.orG
"Although Bainwol has little experience inside the music industry, he brings deep connections to the Republican Party, something the RIAA has largely lacked under Rosen's leadership."
Hmm. Pre-paid senators...
Already I see there's gonna be some problems with this. Mainly the RIAA getting laws that people know aren't kosher passed. And possibly a little too much influence on some issues...
And before I forget:
"What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?"
When the F**K did property rights become a "great american tradition"?!?
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
The Worm That Eternally Devours Its Own Flesh has shed its skin and now has a new one. Big fucking deal. It's still the same worm. It's still evil, and it still wants to consume all that lives.
The only difference I can see this concievably making is that now the constant anti-RIAA snipes on slashdot will no longer be occationally seen to contain unhelpful sexist comments, now that the RIAA has a spokesman and not a spokeswoman. Other than that I do not imagine the quantity or nature of slashdot RIAA posts, nor the actions of the RIAA, will change one bit.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Democrats have a major incentive to support radical copyright law, viz., Hollywood and trial lawyers, which, together with labor unions, comprise the greatest source of their campaign cash.
And what's good for Democrats is bad for Republicans, and vice versa. So maybe instead of seeing Mr. Bainwol pressuring Frist, you will see Frist pressuring Mr. Bainwol.
Or maybe everyone's a sellout.... We can always hope, right? At least he can't possibly be worse than Hillary Rosen.
but forgets about people like Senator Disney Hollings who is a Democrat.
Both parties deserve the bashing, but you're talking out of your ass if you think the Democrats are a safe haven from RIAA/Disney/et. al.
Bainwol said in a statement. "What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?"
He really meant exploitation of artists and monopolies.
Don't forget Frist is from TN, the center of the country music industry - probably the closest you can get to Hollywood without actually going to Hollywood. And he has plenty of pull of his own.
I'm rather sick of these radical modern day liberals (as opposed to old school liberals, who actually believed in liberty) being called "conservatives." These modern day robber barrons are not conservators of anything except greed. I have in mind a much appropriate word to describe them...
Follow me here...
Any good California law firm (as you know, we tend to have the most experience in such a field) will have hired one attorney into partnership for every State Supreme Court Justice, each attorney having previously been a different justice's clerk. After a while of typing all the J's decisions, they know what the Justice wants to read when going over correspondances and court pleadings.
This new head is entirely about the personal experience of working with the head of the senate majority leader, and less about being qualified to lead the RIAA into a rational future that isn't based on getting money through suing people, who by their definition aren't likely to be able to afford a good lawyer.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
Heh, interesting that you would mention that, kind troll. Since coincidentally, Frist is actively supporting a constitutional amendment to officially ban gay marriage. This would effectively be the first constitutional amendment since the 18th(prohibition), ratified in 1919, that is specifically intended to revoke the rights of citizens instead of granting new ones. If this is any indication of the behavior his cronies are prone to, well we're in for a real treat then!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Actions speak louder than words. By appointing Mr Mitch Bainwol as its new chairman and ceo, the Recording Industry Association of America proves once again that its members and board of directors will seek to continue to desperately shore up their antiquated business model through legislation instead of innovation. Rather than seeking someone who's respected by both sides to actively work for solutions, they've hired another Washington insider to push their myopic agenda in Congress. The RIAA often calls for a "Free Market Solution," but nonetheless continually balks at solutions, usually rejecting them out of hand. Its members are all for a "Free Market" - as long as they control it. So instead of celebrating a wind of change by calling off our protests on August 1 and 2, we'll re-double our efforts to make them dates the music industry in general, and the RIAA in particular, will remember. Bill Evans founder boycott-riaa.com
If those "file traders" would just leave behind the music of the corporations that sue them we wouldn't need a lobby - the problem would take care of itself because the publishers wouldn't find enough profit in the music industry to justify sustaining an RIAA. The problem is "file traders" - like the MP3.COM of yore - don't necessarily believe in that stuff about empowering the artist or in helping build a new model of distribution that would help the creators while bypassing the suits. They generally don't care about anything but free music. And if you're paying a lobbyist to defend your (narrow and shortsighted) interest, it ain't free any more.
Republicans own the government right now. You'd have to be a damn *idiot* to side with the underdog when you're about to try pushing through a seriously dicey move that could piss off a lot of Americans.
May we never see th
With such an overt political appointment, the RIAA may have just committed a tactical error: now they are seen as sitting on one side of the bench, whereas before they were seen as a 'legitimate' lobbying group for a powerful industry.
This may affect several points:
1. Yes, the GOP is in power, but Hollywood and the Music industry are standard DEM strongholds. They may not like their new boy, or at least won't invite him to the parties at Rob Reiner's house.
2. They have now unzipped their fly, and are acting pretty brazenly partisan with such a move. This will turn many democrats in congress into automatic defense mode, who may slow legislation down 'just because'.
3. In the end, Bush & Co. may end up having to choose between supporting a major US export (entertainment) vs. giving money to those 'liberal jack-offs in hollywood'-- depending on what Karl Rove says about electoral trends, that could break either way.
davejenkins.com |
Copyright is not a constitutional right, like free speech. While Congress is empowered to legalize copyright, it is not required to do so. Filesharing could be legalized tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill to repeal copyright.
Change the Law explains this in more detail, and suggests some steps to take to legalize filesharing. You can take these steps in almost any country, not just the US:
- Speak Out
- Vote
- Write to Your Elected Representatives
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Practice Civil Disobedience
If you feel as I do that what I have to say in my article is important for others to read, please link to it from your own website, your weblog, or other message boards.Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Krugman writes: "Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage -- a reward for the loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now owe their primary loyalty to the party, rather than to the industries they represent. So corporate cash, once split more or less evenly between the parties, increasingly flows in only one direction."
You are on the right track! (other than the end where you talk about fixing things with legislation -).
First you rightly see that the artists are not part of the current market for 'tunes'. The RIAA sees the artist much like Ford sees a lug-nut (important, but easily replaced by any number of near identical lug-nuts).
Secondly, you are correct that the copyright holders should be allowed to do what they want with their content. Again, the thought of forcing a copyright holder to do something in particular strikes me as serious injustice.
But the connection you fail to make, and that you and Wellspring seem to be missing is that this is purely a problem of technology breaking down the barriers (high cost of production, *especially* the physical media on which the music was 'printed', and an oligopoly of distrubution) against competition in the market.
Due to collusion and lack of competition, CDs cost the same now as they did 10 years ago (if not more). Compare that to cellular phone service and you'll get the idea. If there had been a normal market, then the price for a tune would have been $5 five years ago, and the $1 Apple is charging would not seem so cheap now, it might seem expensive!
Now, with technology, it is becoming cheap to enter the market, and the huge profits of the RIAA members are hanging by the _thread_ that is their continued ability to act as gatekeeper (by exerting monopoly-like power) for what is heard on the radio/MTV/etc. The RIAA believes they can further manipulate the market to prevent competition with laws proscribing the creation of a sharing shadow market.
What the RIAA does not understand is that the longer they delay competition, the more drastic the emergence of an alternative market will be for their current business practices. In the end a new supply/demand equilibrium point will be reached where artists and consumers meet, but without the costs of 'printing' onto plastic, artificially created 'hype'/'buzz'/etc, no payola to Clear Channel, no anti-pirate tax on blank media, etc.
The new market will be extremely diverse and in total far *larger* than exists now under the RIAA stranglehold, and without the stranglehold, the RIAA folks will shrivel extremely quickly. This will be good for the market and for the vast majority of tune-creators (who are now being held down so that a single 'group'/'artist'/'lug-nut' can be used to milk the consumer with as little risk as possible). Technology will continue to advance, and we may see a real flourishing of the arts.
And as for the copyright holders. They will make decisions about their content within the new market (making cost/benefit decisions, etc). Some copyright holders may decide that the market is not right for them (for whatever reason; artistic or economic, etc) and NOT RELEASE THEIR CONTENT. They can put it in a museum or only perform in front of 1000 folks paying $1 MILLION each -whatever. But we, the consumers will not be bending over backwards for the profit of a small group of shareholders from a small number of corporations.
Limiting copyrights would be good for similar reasons, but that's a different part of structure of this market and need not be considered central to this discussion.
-ptah
Its an interesting argument...Most people are overvaluing copyright by bringing it up to the traditional value of 'rights', whereas your argument is about lowering the value of 'rights' to the level of copyright. But in response:
You'll pardon my bluntness: If you assume that basic human rights are granted to you by the government, then you've as much as given them up already. Basic rights can certainly be suppressed by a powerful government, but that a government does not suppress them is not the same as the government granting them. The former is simply justice being served, while the latter sets up exactly the power aristocracy the Founders tried to vigorously prevent.
To illustrate, given the logic that a government can grant basic human rights, you must logically assume that the government is also the proprietor of those human rights, for who can give what one does not first have? If the government owns my right to say what I want, then do I have that right?
Interesting? Try off topic
Communism is the "natural enemy" of freedom.
Ihis post has NOTHING to do with the original and is a bunch of marxist trash.Remember its never about the "issue" its always about the marxist revolution.
By the way, the "rest of the world" is becoming more liberal, not less. Gay marriages are becoming far more common outside the U.S. For example, they are now completely legal in Ontario as of a few months ago, and the Canadian government is drafting law to make it legal throughout Canada.
First of all, up until very recently, if both partners worked, marriage resulted in a tax increase. Second, if the supposed marriage tax breaks were for bearing children, then why would there be a separate child tax credit?
Obviously wrong as well. The so-called "marriage penalty" only applied to a fraction of two-income married couples, generally when they earned widely disparate incomes. There are a number of financial/legal benefits to being married, at least in U.S. society.
if you think it's the government's place to say what marriage is intendted to be, you should probably move to a country where those views are shared.
Well, the government (in the U.S. as well as other places) already is in the business of saying what marriage is. And I think that is the point of gay marriage advocates. If marriage was simply an institution defined and administered by religious institutions, without any sort of government involvement or benefit, then this would be a different story. Gay couples could get married all they want by establishing their own church institutions with other like-minded individuals or by seeking out friendly denominations. But the government is in the business of sanctioning marriages, which creates a completely different scenario, and in all fairness, it is marginalizing a group of people and denying them priveleges that are given to others, something that is antithetical to what we would like to believe the U.S. is about.
Back on-topic now...
fuck you.
Look at the Enron situation. So many politicians had their hands in that cookie jar. When it collapsed, no one was interested in prosecuting the guilty - everyone was more interested in saving their own derriere.
The time to push for such a thing is now, before the corporations become even more fused with our government. We are quickly reaching a point of no return, and if the people lose their power in the government to the corporation, we will never get it back.