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

Hey

[Surak]

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist

Is this a Frist Psot?

Re:Hey

[commodoresloat]

I'm too lazy to find it, but my favorite first post was someone who posted to the topic "What would happen if 99% of computers on the internet were destroyed?" The first poster wrote "Easy... that's 99% fewer computers to beat me to the first post!" It was funny, on topic, and it was the first post. But it still got modded troll....

Re:Hey

[sirinek]

This was a loooong time ago, but there was a story posted about someone, I think it was an Apple higher-up, and the first post was that guy and his post of simply "Yup."

(Im too lazy to look it up too)

Walking the walk

[swordgeek]

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.

Political wars

[BWJones]

This confirms the speculation that the RIAA would appoint a well-connected Republican (Rosen was a Democrat)."

Well, I suppose from this wording there will not be any political flame wars generated from this.... :-)

Former?

[momerath2003]

Former Chief of Staff? Why did Bainwol get fired from / leave his previous position?

Re:Former?

[Waffle Iron]

Why did Bainwol get fired from / leave his previous position?

He was just carried along by the angular momentum of the congressional/lobbyist revolving door.

frick! er frist er...

[johnny0101]

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...

Re:frick! er frist er...

[Scarblac]

Sigh... I am a Republican but on this issue they are pissing me off...

Funny how Americans say "I am a Republican" while a Dutchman would say "I voted VVD last election"... Did you get some sort of label when you were born? :-)

Seriously, it seems like people in the US pretty much always vote what they always voted, simply because that's the camp they feel they belong to... Nothing's ever going to change that way.

Tattoo

[Ryan Stortz]

Damn, now I need to get that "Death to Hillary" tattoo removed.

Re:Tattoo

[greysky]

You'd probably be best to keep it for when "the other Hillary" runs for the White House in 2008.

So...

[zifty]

We're replacing a liberal die-hard conservative with a republican die-hard conservative to head a company whose conservatism rivals Dubbya's lack of intelligence.

I think I'll have a good cry.

Bad thing

[hamtux6]

It's possible this may be modded down, but...

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...

Re:Bad thing

[kaltkalt]

No, this issue is not about republican/democrat rich/poor. It is about paying off congresspeople to act on an issue that "the american people" do not care about. Well, to that extent it is about money, but only the RIAA's money. Ever notice how every evil copyright bill that gets passed is sponsored by one republican and one democrat? I explained why this is on another post on another thread, and I'm too lazy to go find it (but of course it was +5 insightful hehe). Fucking over the american media consumer, much like getting rid of kiddie porn, is an issue with complete bi-partisan support. It could be worse - both parties could be trying to out-do each other and show who is "really" tougher on IP pirate-theives.

Re:Bad thing

[Grieveq]

"He's a right-wing Republican; the GOP is pro-rich, pro-big corporations, and pro-personal interest."

I'm guessing before today's story, you've never heard of this guy. I haven't either so don't feel bad. Sure we all know Frist, but he is hardly a galvinizing conservative icon.

Of course...your second line shows your true colors. Pro-rich, pro-big corporations, blah blah. Same 'ole line from the liberals. Who paints who with broad brush strokes?

Maybe you should give him a chance, before damning him. At least bother to learn a little bit about the person instead of spewing liberal talking points.

Re:Bad thing

[TopShelf]

"Pro-rich" is such an idiotic term anyway. Heck, even Deng Xiao Ping said "to become rich is glorious," thus setting the path towards China's move away from a command economy.

Would you really want a candidate who's pro-poor??? "What we need in this county is more poverty!"

Riiiiight...

[bersl2]

"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.

Re:Riiiiight...

[Anonymous Coward]

is you kidding?

property rights almost DEFINE America!

But of course I wonder what the hell does that have to do with Copyrights and music.. copyright takes the concept of property right and flips it upside down.

I can just imagine if the RIAA was around in the early days of America:

RIAA exec: Hi there Farmer Joe, I'd like to talk to you about potential copyright infringements, specifically your Friday-night get-togethers where you sing unlicensed performances of Little Brown Jug.

Farmer: Git off mah property, monkey-suit boy! I bought that there sheet music fair an' square!

RIAA exec: I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you only purchased the rights to perform it in the presence of yourself and one optional family member. Inviting the neighborhood over to "sing along" constitutes an infringment of the our rights.

Farmer: What the hell are you talkin' about! I BOUGHT that there sheet music, that there sheet music is mine, same as the door you're a-standin' in, and the gun I'm a-gettin right now to blast a hole in your flabby gut.

RIAA exec: Now now Farmer Joe, that's not how copyrights work, the rights to perform the song still belong to us. Now, we can settle this matter if you pay us $15,000, and we promise not to take away your house.

Farmer: You're an ijit. *BLAM* *BLAM*

Re:Riiiiight...

[Dr. Bent]

Who said property rights was a great American tradition?

Oh nobody...just the FIFTH AMENDMENT!

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"

The original vision the founders had for property rights (including the original 14+14 copyright), is what made the American middle class possible. So they're very rewarding, for you and everyone else. If you don't have personal property rights, you have no incentive to work because the fruits of your labor can be taken from you at the whim of the government.

Now music...that's a whole other story...

will you people calm down...

[irving47]

He hasn't even DONE anything yet.

Hit me.

Re:will you people calm down...

[Alien Being]

Didn't he try to buy uranium from Nigeria?

Re:will you people calm down...

[ramzak2k]

He hasn't even DONE anything yet.

And we are just practicing.

Wait a second...

[jeffkjo1]

Bainwol said in a statement. "What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?"

Damnit... And all along I thought it was baseball and barbeques.

Re:Wait a second...

[commodoresloat]

And all along I thought it was baseball and barbeques.

You misspelled "beer."

Re:It figures.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Now I know who to vote for.

[supz]

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)

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 I know who to vote for.

[MourningBlade]

The reality is that so far I haven't seen a very convincing defense of music piracy.

I'm not going to take a stab at this, but I'd like to hear what you think about a few points. Who knows, maybe it'll clear up the debate a little bit.

Let's say that distribution of pro-abortion material was deemed offensive in your district. Further, it was deemed obscene. Now let's say that people really do feel that way, and it's not just an attempt to squelch free speech.

If you were to distribute informational pamphlets that discussed abortion in a positive light, you would be committing an illegal act. Furthermore, you would be distributing (or attempting to distribute) these pamphlets to people who truly found them offensive.

Would you be right in doing it, even if it's illegal?

Sorry that I used "abortion" but I'm in the buckle of the bible belt, and we run into those questions down here.

How does this relate to "music piracy"? Because it serves to illustrate several assumptions:

• That the onus is upon you to comply with restrictions of speech.
• That restrictions can be made upon that speech just because people consider it to be "right." (or wrong)

The trick is how copyright works. Consider for a moment what copyright means. It is not property. It can be bought and sold, but it is not quite property. It is a government granted, sanctioned, and enforced monopoly granted for a limited time. It is literally taking out phrases, ideas, and images from our freedom of speech.

Is that wrong? Well, I'd be hard pressed to say that was wrong, because we do have the sense that someone who makes something owns it, whether draftsman or craftsman. But at the same time, for freedom of speech to exist we shouldn't have to worry so much about what we say.

Also, consider what freedom of speech is: it's a description of a lack of controls upon an interaction. Copyright is intrinsically an interaction between two people when its value is assessed.

A work of art can be enjoyed solely by its creator without copyright coming in to play, much as land can be enjoyed only by its owner without needing someone else to desire that land.

So, copyright is a restriction upon speech and a restriction upon interaction, and it is granted for a limited time.

If that is true --- that copyright is a restriction, not a restriction in the sense of "two people cannot both own 100% of something" like land or material items, but a restriction in the sense that "I can own what you say" --- then perhaps the onus is not upon we the public to justify our use of something so much as it is upon the copyright holder to justify our lack of "permission" to use it.

Why do I mention this? You ask for a justification for "piracy." I think that's a bit turned around on its head.

When copyright was set out in America (note that I can only speak for America), most of the argument boiled down to "alright, we'll put up with this abomination, but only for a short while, and only if it benefits us" because copyright was not viewed as a "right."

Maybe it should be. I don't know. But regardless, if you're going to argue about the current copyright system, you need to consider upon whom the responsibility for justification is. Much of the law comes from discovering upon whom obligation for justification lies.

Most of the good arguments I've heard against music trading is that it dilutes the value of their property[1]. Does that hold up? Well, that's an argument for the statisticians.

These are just some things to consider. I'd like to hear anything you have to say concerning the subject. Please note that I am not "for" music piracy. Not really sure how I feel about it. I just would like to see a clearer discussion.

[1] - Please don't make the mistake of saying "it's bad because it's against the law." I've heard that a few times, and it's useless because when you're talking about right and wrong it makes little sense to discuss the factuality of the law. The premise behind the law, sure. But not the factuality.

Re:Now I know who to vote for.

[femto]

It's not about music. It's about the bigger picture.

The world is moving towards an era of exceedingly low barriers to manufacturing and distribution. (See previous story on peer-to-peer manufacturing.) Incumbents are selfishly seeking to impose artificial barriers, such as claiming property rights over ideas and information.

We will have an opportunity to abolish resource shortages and largely solve material needs. The alternative is people dying from disease and starvation due to artificial barriers, such as intellectual 'property rights', preventing them from receiving things such as drugs and food. These things will be affordable if artificial barriers, such as intellectual property', are removed. (It is is okay to charge competitive prices for materials, labour and other scarce resources.) Okay you may argue R&D needs to be recouped, but as simulations become more accurate R&D costs will plummet, rendering such arguments moot.

Re:Now I know who to vote for.

[MourningBlade]

Three things mar what would be an otherwise great justification of the practice here.

Errrm...but I really wasn't trying to justify it, just set up portions of a discussion. Either way, looks like someone does want to have the discussion, so maybe we can clear some things up.

there is a difference between distributing materials on the street[...see above post for rest...]

That does tend to block off the "moral crusader" route, which is probably the route you should take if you want to see the law repealed.

Perhaps, though, the distribution on the street and the distribution at the computer methods do differ.

Thinking this through: what is it about the computer that makes it to where people feel free about distributing files? It's not anonymity for the most part, as many traders set up nicknames or handles for themselves, establishing pseudonymity. Often they tend to like talking to one another and talking about what they like and don't like, and what's cool and what's not. ShareReactor is a good example of that. Most of the hugely successful communities either offer 1) incredible selection, or 2) a chatting community that leads people to "cool stuff."

Most tend to succeed at the latter, if they succeed at all. Note that this does not have to be intrinsic to the network, it can grow up around the network (BitTorrent, for example).

Well, you can get that from doing it on the street, too.

On the other hand, what's the likelyhood of you just plopping your butt down on the sidewalk and finding some psychadelic trance fans who have some nice tracks that they want you to check out for no reason at all but because they're cool.

Pretty low, unless you're at a trance convention, and then you're likely to run into marketroids and others who try to work the marketing system.

Also, on the street unless everyone has laptops or something along those lines and headphones and a way to connect, people aren't going to be able to listen as they trade and chat. LAN parties tend to be that way, but they aren't the sidewalk.

Come to think of it, LAN parties are very, very much like the P2P systems in some respects: lots of files swapped across, lots of stuff shown, listening while you trade, going off and doing other stuff, etc.

Most likely on the street you're going to have to give people tapes or CDs, and then you look like a radio station or a promoter.

So maybe there is something different between the examples. One is what the community is, and one is purely a protest, and probably wouldn't win any sympathies.

Maybe we should advertise the fact that at our next LAN party we will have files available to trade? Even that doesn't sound like the community. Hmmm...can you think of a way to do what the community is like and also have it be very public and "moral crusade"?

When in the culture of file trading, it often becomes very difficult to say that it's wrong. Most of the time, it's not people in dark trenchcoats saying "I got what'chu need, ese", it's more of "check this shit out, man! You liked that track by Infected Mushroom, right? Well, check out Trance Cowboy. Here's my collection, check a few of them out, they're righteous."

Has more in common with people sitting around with discmans and headphones swapping CDs.

But of course, they're not "swapping CDs" they are duplicating them. There isn't any burning need for them to buy the album so they can get that music. Maybe when we're in the culture it just *seems* right without *being* right.

Just something to consider. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

They explicitly stated the reasons: in order to promote further development and creativity.

But at the same time, most don't feel that that is the case, nor do they feel that the justification fits the extension. That means that the "justification" is a bit shaky, if not wrong.

Example: you and I are friends, and we both love The Simpsons. I

Re:protecting property

[fidget42]

/me sits back and waits for people to start making fun of his name.....

You mean simething like: "Can you imagine a Bainwol cluster of these?"

Time to flee to Canada?

[HermanAB]

Well, in the time honoured tradition, repressed citizens of the freedom loving USA, can still flee to Canada. Maybe, just maybe, claiming persecution by the evil RIAA, will get you refugee status.

If anything, it will probably get the Vietnam vets and slave traders to spin in their graves at 45rpm...

More rewarding....

[Anonymous Coward]

What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?" Bainwol said in a statement.

What would be more rewarding that promoting music and property rights? Hmmmm tough one there.

How about the immense joy, convenience and satisfaction associated with obtaining music online? Heck, how about masturbation for that matter.

Influence abounds...

[speedfreak_5]

"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"?!?

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.)

Armageddon

[arvindn]

I can't help getting the feeling that as the inevitable ganging together of the forces of evil accelerates, armageddon can't be far off.

Republican in the RIAA?

[teamhasnoi]

Thank God I'm not sharing Midnight Oil or I could end up being 'liberated' in the head.

*knock, knock*

Hold on a sec....

Hey! What the..?! *PFhhT*

*thunk*

I FULLY SUPPORRT OUR NEW REPUBLIC KAN OVERLOARDS!!

Conservative?

[poptones]

I don't get it - how are either of these conservative? We have yet to see how Hillary the latter will rule (although indications are he'll be as radically corporatist as Rosen), but Hillary the former was quite obviously a radical liberal. The only difference between Rosen and Al Sharpton is the group to which they would like to give special priviledges.

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...

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.

Gasp! Less-biased reporting!

[CSharpMinor]

The record industry has seen CD sales slump for three years, a decline it blames on online file-sharing sites where music can be traded freely and sometimes before it is even released.

The New York times just says, "A decline caused by online file-sharing sites...." The LA Times does the same. CNN is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, and obviously just states it as though it's a credible fact. NBC/ABC/CBS ignore the issue, and follow CNN's lead when they don't. Fox... well, Fox will be Fox.

And here Reuters is at least insinuating that a doubt may exist. What's that Eric Blair/George Orwell (real name/pen name) quote about times of lies and revolutionary truths?

Sing along with Mitch!

[teamhasnoi]

Mitch promises to bring a revival to the music industry.

"Gone are the days when Auto-Tune carried a song! I will bring back talent to the Industry!", Mitch crowed at a Republican fund raiser, to the applause of many rich, white fat men.

"It's high time the kids of today learned what music should sound like! I remember when talent drove the market, not the other way around! When I ascend to the throne, I will bring talent! I will bring value! I will bring CDs unencumbered with copy protection, and chock full of value!" Mitch puctuated these remarks with a pounding fist and spittle.

Mitch finished his speech to the attendees with a rousing cry, "The RIAA will no longer be the 'bad guy'! We will sponsor new artists and stick with them, developing careers and encouraging creativity! We will offer all signed artists with new contracts, spelling out exactly what they will make - no hidden accounting!"

"We will no longer chase file-sharers, who only do us a favor by expanding both our horizons with music, and purchase more CDs than ever before! We will never allow another American Idol or Making of the Band or manufactured marketing-friendly boy band again! All copyrights will revert to the original artist!"

"I will personally include a puppy with every single sold! *HAHAHAAHAHA.cough cough..oh shit, I thought I could keep a straight face! Pass the bong guys, *wheeeezee* this is going to be great! I can't wait to absolutely wreck music forever! These shits are gonna be scared to look at a guitar, much less pick one up when we get done with them..I am gonna be SHITTTIIING moooonnnneeey, muthafuc...*hack* Oh, Bushies here!!! WHoooHOOO! Let's DO SOME LINES!!! Where's the White Lady??HAHAHAhaha..."

This re-enactment is for entertainment only. It is not intended to portray Republicans as evil, rich, fat white, self-serving drug monkeys. Nor did Mitch ever say any of these things in front of me. Thank you, and please drink republicanly. ;)

Re:WELCOME TO MY FOES LIST U FAGGOT!

[deglr6328]

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!

Nitpick.

[autechre]

The copyright holder, in the case of musical compositions, is not usually making decisions about "his work", but someone else's. The artist almost never has the rights to their own work.

This can be important. Various artists, some big name (I believe the Smashing Pumpkins were one) were far more ready to embrace music on the Internet than the copyright holders, but of course, the artists couldn't really do anything about it as they were under contract to the label.

Is it their fault for signing to a major? Technically yes, but it's hard to blame them, even for me. It's nice to see someone like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs get mainstream radio play, but it doesn't happen very often. If you want the big audiences, you sign to the big labels, and lose your rights.

I think that the limits on copyright should be much shorter than they currently are, but I think that within those limits, people should be free to do what they want with their work. It's a shame it's often not up to the artists, but I don't think we can rightly change that with legislation.

Re:Nitpick.

[Ptahian]

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

It's because Republicans are on top

[0x0d0a]

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.

A new head for the RIAA?

[phorm]

Interesting... I've always assumed that the RIAA wasn't lead by a head, so much as a collection of asses...

Maybe not such a bad thing....

[davejenkins]

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.

Change the Law

[MichaelCrawford]

Sixty million Americans use peer-to-peer networks to share music. That's more Americans than voted for George Bush. If they all engaged in a little consciousness-raising and then got organized, they could vote in a government that would make filesharing legal.

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.

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.

Truth in Sentencing

[heretic108]

Parking in a 'No Parking' zone:
- $40-$200 fine

Petty Theft:
- $200 fine to 90 days' jail

Aggravated Assault:
- 90 days to 5 years' jail

3rd Degree Murder:
- 3 to 10 years' jail

2nd Degree Murder:
- 8 to 20 years' jail

Associating With A Person Who Is Known To Have Had KaZaa Installed On Their Hard Disk:
- 25 to life!

Mitch Bainwol anagrams

[Alien Being]

limit bach now
omni law bitch
wino itch balm
blow manic hit
him can blow it
i bowl in match
nail mob witch
mail bitch now
howl at ibm inc
i watch no limb
climb a hit now
octal whim bin
hint i blow mca