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!
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...
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!"
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.
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