Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa CEO vs. Hilary Rosen
Carpoolio writes "TechTV is continuing its good coverage of the RIAA attack on file swappers, and now they've gone to Australia to interview Nikki Hemming, CEO of Sharman Networks (Kazaa). It's supposedly one of the only TV interviews she's ever done, and Hemming has some interesting things to say about Hilary Rosen and the RIAA, and the future of Kazaa, but without revealing too much. In TechTV's story (part of a three-part series), they've pitted the two against each other, using a recent interview they did with Rosen. Streaming video of the Rosen interview is included on the site."
But then I realize that part of the 15 bucks I would have given to best buy or whatever is going to fund a lawsuit against the parents of some 13 year old girl who downloaded the latest n*stink song, listened to it twice, and forgot about it (nevermind the fact that the song COULD have been copied from the GOD DAMN RADIO)...
So I am left with hunting on KaZaA for a song that may or may not be the real (or whole) song, and might very well crap out halfway through the download...
RIAA, sod off... some of us want your music, and WOULD pay 13-15 bucks for a CD, but not if you're going to rape us...
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Rosen claims KaZaA is ruining, not expanding, the recording industry by allowing inferior copies of music to be downloaded with its software. "If you're using KaAaA today, you're getting, in my view, a crappy quality song -- not what the artist did in the studio, not what they wanted you to hear, not their finest work," she said.
I thought the problem the RIAA had with digital copying was that copies were near-perfect and did not degrade over generations? There Hilary is telling us that digital copies are not good copies.
The RIAA, two faced? Never! If digital copies suck so much, I want my LP's back, too!
How is the RIAA finding out who's sharing what on Kazaa? Are they using Kazaa to do it? And if they are, by simply using the Kazaa software are they killing their own case?
The thing that we all need to realize, like Napster and Morpheus, Kazaa is essentially dead now. Let it go. Nobody wants to share on it now for fear of being caught. So the real question is where's the next filesharing service? The one that we can all use for another year or two until legal action is taken against it and we move on to the next one?
Its a helluva lot easier to get a CD at target for 13 bucks as opposed to hunting on Kazaa for the entire thing in good quality that isnt the chorus repeated over and over and over...
but if even 1 penny of that purchase goes to fund a lawsuit, they fuck 'em. I'd rather infringe their copyright.
Oh, and if they dont want us listening to their music for free, then perhaps they shouldnt play it on the radio... I'd guess that over 95% of the stuff I download is the flavor of the week on the radio.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
How about not buying the CD or downloading.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Agreed. I do not buy CDs anymore due to the RIAA's actions in recent years. Not only it's bad business practice concerning filing suits against individuals, but it's push for hacked CDs and other devices to prevent me from making backups of my purchases.
In regards to their panic and need to sue everyone under the sun over mp3's, why do they get so upset when their public statements regarding the quality of pirated music as inferior to the CDs they sell? It would seem to me that inferior, unauthorized, copies would give downloaders an extra incentive to purchase after they download.
Aside from my dislike over their litigation happy ways, other things that contribue to my refusal to purchase CDs:
1) over-simplified, stereotypical bands and music categories. There's only ever a few songs from a few big names, with an occasional introductory band of any given category. At least that's all that ever hits the airwaves and major music stores.
2) too much urge for political control. For the RIAA to be such a small sector in the economy, it has an incredible amount of political backing. They have systematically bought votes from a great number of politicians through donations and capaign funds.
3) refusal to modernize business practice. The use of litigation and threats appear to be the means by which to keep a mid-1900's business model afloat in the new millenium. If all that money was spent on enabling technology and music, they wouldn't be sinking financially.
4) refusal to acknowledge why sales are plumetting. They scream 'piracy!' when it comes to falling numbers. But, take the percentage loss of sales in the past two years and compare it to the loss of sales for movie tickets, vacations, amusement parks, and other recreational spending.
I am certain the decline is global and due to a sinking world economy. Their sales will pick back up if they calm down, release more titles for people who aren't 16-20 years old, and wait for the economy to get rolling again.
"I don't think you do stop technology," Rosen said. "I don't think we'd want to stop technology."
Indeed, the RIAA would rather load up CDs with copy-protection technologies instead. I've had to turn down three recent CDs that I was interested in, since I know they won't play on most of my computers or linux-based portables. A shame, since I would have shelled out the $18CAN for them too.
Yes they have, they have sued people for sharing as little as five songs. They are suing thier customers because they want to scare the bejesus out of everyone, therefore they try to sue the most average people they can find. It has nothing to do with costing them money, it's a smear campaign and they have said so themselves.
I still believe that file sharing is a scapegoat for the real reason in dropping cd sales. Baby boomers have finished replacing their vinyl. Nuff said.
Sure I believe file swapping is stealing. But if it never existed sales figures would be the same as they are now. Basically the internet has created a victimless crime. In my model of the world anyway.
I ask the question. How many people anywhere can afford to buy 500 cd's in a couple of months. The RIAA acctually thinks that people have made the disicion to not spend 10 000 dollars on them every three months? And to get it for free/steal it instead?
Pass interferance is waved off if the ball is ruled uncatchable.
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
The thing I find interesting is this comment from Rosen.
"If you're using KaAaA today, you're getting, in my view, a crappy quality song -- not what the artist did in the studio, not what they wanted you to hear, not their finest work," she said."
Her contention is if you grab a song off Kazaa, you're getting an inferior versions.
I find this interesting, given the RIAA has said all along that the reason they're going after P2P is because the digital piracy of Napster has ability to make unlimted identical copies with no loss of quality.
Hmmm... Rosen speak with forked tongue methinks...
The way I see it (I'm no expert either, but this is how I understood it from the link) is that basically a CD has a maximum volume that it can have. We'll call this level 10 volume. The volume of course flucuates a lot in a regular song, but each song has an 'average' volume. Back in the old days of mastering, they would try to get this average volume at around 5. That way, you could have loud sounds occasionally, and soft sounds too. However, what soon happened was that whenever an amateur recorded a CD, their average volume would be at around 3 or so, and you'd have to turn your stereo's volume way up to hear them. So eventually people began to associate a low average volume with unproffesional bands. So then, the professionals started to make their average volume to be at around 6. This would cause their CDs to sound even more professional, because it was even louder than the other professional CDs. This was alright, because there was still a lot of lee-way for the volume to increase when it needed to. However, recently the professional CDs have increased their average volume even higher, to maybe 8 or 9. This is bad though, because there is not much lee-way for the volume to increase. If the average volume were at 10, then all the sounds in the CD would be at the exact same volume, and there would be no variety, thus causing the song to sound like crap.
Check the correct option. :) It is often argued by file-sharing advocates that P2P apps, such as KaZaA have a lot of non-infringing uses. Their opponents respond by claiming that despite that 90%+ of the traffic on KaZaA is illegal. But that certainly depends on the point of view.
:)
Most people here on Slashdot subconsciously assume that US laws define the picture, but that is not true. Copyright laws in different countries are different (that is probably one of the reasons for KaZaA's complex legal structure). You've heard about DeCSS case in Norway, you've heard about Denmark P2P users getting bills for downloaded files, but have you heard about the place where half of the Hollywood movies in in the public domain?
Here is the breaking news. The Ministry of Culture of Russian Federation has published a long list of movies that are now in the public domain (automated translation of the list> by Translate.Ru). Titles include Bambi, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Monty Python and hundreds of other brilliant films.
This is not the first time when opposition to copyright comes from Russia and probably not the last. Now that these movies officially belong to the public (in Russia), what implications, do you think, this has for the rest of the world and for file-sharing?
And hosting in Russia would probably cost just a few cents per movie uploaded abroad... And the best thing is that would really be 100% legal.
P.S. You may think this is too good to be true, but believe me, it is true. It seems that most movies more than 30 years old really are in public domain now (called obschestvennoe dostoyanie in Russian.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.