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?"

Comments

who's paying who?

[spamchang]

aren't the democrats traditionally the ones who get big bucks from the entertainment industry? they had an almightily funded effort to ease off the MPAA ratings debate a while ago, and it was democrats getting their pockets padded. i'm pretty angry to see the republicans getting in with the recording industry, firstly because i vote republican, and secondly because i don't agree with the RIAA. all politicians are starting to suck. (i thought frist was a nice guy in person. hopefully this is not indicative of his true nature.)

We could solve the problem once and for all

[dcavanaugh]

Study NRA tactics. Organize a boycott. Pick one record label and concentrate on driving them into bankruptcy. Enforce a new reality on the music market. Then it wouldn't matter who is running RIAA, would it?

Notice how Congress fears the NRA, and not just because they have guns. There are more file sharers than NRA members. Consider the possibilities.

Re:Now I know who to vote for.

[Wellspring]

A Democrat signed the DMCA. Hilary Rosen was a democrat. Both parties actually agree on alot... of course we don't hear that in the news because the stuff that there is consensus on isn't newsworthy. On this stuff there's mostly apathy, salted with consensus.

The reality is that so far I haven't seen a very convincing defense of music piracy. That isn't to say I wouldn't be receptive to one (I am) but most of them boil down to a general denial of property rights or good reasons why the artist/label/retailer would benefit if they decided to allow copying. If I haven't heard a satisfactory defense (and I'm looking) it's no surprise that people with more important things to worry about haven't, either.

Fair use provisions in copyright law, shorter lifetimes for copyrights, etc. are all very noble, and well-advocated. But that's different from justifying the sharing of music recordings, when the copyright holder doesn't want this. The tactics used by the RIAA are objectionable-- but again that's a question of means not ends.

So ultimately, lawmakers who have much bigger things to worry about (like war and the economy) see the following facts:

1. The internet allows people to easily record and trade music.
2. Nearly everyone is doing this, therefore getting music for free.
3. The trade group representing the copyright holders for this music are up in arms.
4. Some computer advocates object to certain technical provisions in the existing legislation, like fair use clarifications.
5. Large numbers of people want music trading to be legal.

To be honest, I may not like the RIAA, but I can see the problem. Unless there is a good reason why a copyright holder doesn't have to the right to limit copying of his work (hence copyright), then I might limit some of the more odious enforcement provisions, but I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to protect their rights.

Again, I'm receptive to such an argument. I do think that we're foolishly crushing fair use rights. I also think that copyrights (and while we're at it, patents) should be returned to their founding-father era lifespans. And criminalizing a good percentage of the public is a little silly, too. But that isn't the same as removing copyrights entirely.

The music industry (and especially artists) would greatly benefit from circulating free but low-bitrate versions of their music to drive CD and concert sales-- I think that they're shooting their profits in the foot by not embracing the technology (they're already streaming low-bitrate audio wirelessly anyway, aren't they?-- and to great effect). But they have the right to shoot their profits in the foot if that's what they want to do.

Instead of modding me down, post a reply telling me why forcing a copyright holder to allow free sharing of his work is good public policy. I want to believe, I just haven't heard a satisfactory argument yet.

Re:Now I know who to vote for.

[heli0]

"and a democrat president will shoot down whatever laws the RIAA lobbyists try to create."

I hate to disappoint you but Hollywood(MPAA/RIAA) is one of the primary contributors to the Democratic party, the other two being trial lawyers and labor unions. Have you already forgot who signed the DMCA into law?

Re:Now that they've got a Republican in the post..

[grendel_x86]

How long until file traders are considered "terrorists" trying to destroy the "American"(corporate) way of life.

Has anyone realized that the navy commercials now end with "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten it"? What the hell is that?

As the government and corporations fuse, they are solidifying of new aristocracy. This means that our individual voices get drowned out. Where in the constitution does it say they get representation? Last time I checked, the government was of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I know it will never happen, but I think the only way to save our government, is to ban lobbying (legalized bribery). How can we compete w/ business giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars in 'incentive'?

I think I need to start my own country (think of the exodus from Battletech). No RIAA, no DMCA, no waste of our lives to get better profits on oil.