Lawrence Lessig To Debate Hilary Rosen At USC

An anonymous reader writes "On October 21, the University of Southern California will be hosting a public debate entitled "The War Over Music: A Debate". On stage and at odds: your favorite RIAA chair/CEO Hilary Rosen and law professor/cyber-rights guru Lawrence Lessig. Admission is $10 and open to the general public. If you'll be in Los Angeles and would like to attend, buy your tickets early."

Comments

In the red corner

[Anonymous Coward]

from the recrordingindustryassociationofamerica HILLLLLLLLLARY RO-O-0-O-OUZEN,

in the black corner, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, the heavyweight champ, LLLLLLLLAWWRENCE LESSSSSSIG!!!!

(uproad in the public, bookies running around actively taking bets)

Webcast?

[BrynM]

This is bound to be one hell of an interesting debate. I hope they at least do an archive webcast of it. It doesn't look like they're doing a live one.

Re:Webcast?

[corbettw]

"This is bound to be one hell of an interesting debate. I hope they at least do an archive webcast of it. It doesn't look like they're doing a live one."

I don't know, there might be copyright concerns with a Webcast. What if a copy ended up on KaZaa?

Prediction

[Henry V .009]

Lawrence Lessig will cream Rosen (has she argued a case before the SCOTUS?). Afterwards, the RIAA will push Congress to pass a new copyright law on public debates, with a recommended life sentence to anyone supplying a transcript without the permission of all parties. Rosen will claim victory, and when Lessig tries to use the transcript to correct her, the government will disappear him to Guantanamo Bay.

Re:Prediction

[abulafia]

Either Macdaddy is right, or it means the Supreme Court Of The US.

Common acronym used by people who talk about, well, the Supreme Court Of The US.

Used interchanably with the less popular USSC and SCUS acronyms. Additionally, some people call them "God", but that usage is generally only used by people who are attempting to get clerkships.

Re:Prediction

[Snowspinner]

Redding?

Um, Rosen Isn't the Head of RIAA Anymore

[gwynnebaer]

It's Mitch Bainwol, the former GOP whipping boy.
Not that it would matter. If anything, Ms. Rosen might be more at liberty to discuss issues than before, now that's she no longer a hired gun.

Rosen ought to sound...

[Ieshan]

Rosen ought to sound about as "smrat" as Bush in a spelling-bee.

Yes, the typo was intended. Stop nitpikcing.

hmm

[SHEENmaster]

The big deal that won't be discussed is that the record company steals profits from artists by only paying artists for 90% of records sold, ignoring the other 10% from the time when shellac records would break in transit.

It's not stealing when I copy your work, as I'm not depriving you of property or profiting from it. It is stealing if I agree to pay you $0.20 per copy of your CD I sell, when I actually sell you $0.18.

Hilary Rosen speech (Mar 2003)

[glassesmonkey]

A few highlights from a speech given at the Natl Assoc of Recording Merchanisers Annual Convention on March 17, 2003 by then RIAA Chairman & CEO, Hilary Rosen:

(It is long but there a few gems towards the end)

. . .

We are all at a critical juncture in our relationship with music fans and now is our opportunity to put their interests first. Not ours. I firmly believe that when the music consumer is well served, so will we all be as well.

Consumers' needs from record companies have become more complicated but they start with the same basics. Fans want great music. Their perception of cost is directly related to their perception of value. (ED: so, you do get it that we think the crap you are putting out over the last few years is worthless) They want music in more formats than we give them. They want deeper catalog more easily available. They want to know when their favorite artists have a new record coming out. They want a way to make compilations without feeling guilty or like criminals. They want us to find a way to solve our piracy problems without encroaching on - or even talking about - their personal use flexibility. (ED: so major press releases and public policing campaign is quietly solving the problem, eh?)

I want to give you a brief overview today of why I am confident that the music industry is positioned to recapture growth in future years. (ED: I'm confident that indies are positioned to capture some of your market share) And since piracy is near the top of everyone's mind as the variable that will either make or break that growth potential, I want to give you some detail on some of the strategies we are undertaking to address that problem.

Think about it. The challenges we have faced as an industry with Napster and its clones are in many ways unprecedented in American commercial history. There we were rockin' along, producing and selling great music and producing enough revenue to not just support everyone, but also to grow the opportunities around the world for a bigger and bigger business. Then suddenly we wake up one day and everything we have worked so hard to build is being offered to consumers for free or for a scant dollar on the street corner. Not 10 percent off. Not reduced interest rates. Not negotiated payment schedules. Our product is suddenly being offered to consumers for absolutely nothing.

...
Finally I must talk about enforcement. I want you all to have the very latest information about what is being done to fight piracy directly at the sources.

First and foremost, I believe that we should not be ashamed to protect our rights. I am tired of those who suggest that because sometimes someone is a music fan or a technology innovator or even, god forbid, a teenager (ED: How profetic) or a student that they have a right to steal. They don't. We know too many people who suffer from the consequences of that insensitivity to buy that self-serving argument.

Where would this business be without strong laws to protect intellectual property and more specifically copyrights? I would not be here; none of us in this room would be here. (ED: Hmm.. I guess I see the root of the problem now) Copyright are the rules of the road that encourage and ensure that creators bring forward new art every day. The right to decide how and when to reproduce, perform and distribute your works.

It may seem obvious, but it should not be overlooked. It is the guiding principle and philosophy of what the RIAA does, and the stake that retailers have in this principle is significant.

In addition to street piracy, we all are, of course, confronting the epidemic if of illegal downloading occurring on p

Steps

[coolmacdude]

Lessig:
Step 1, pick 5 really sucky artists.
Step 2, Throw em millions in marketing $$ and flood the radio stations with nothing but their music.
Step 3, PROFIT!

Rosen:
Bullshit! You dirty liar. Everyone knows it goes like this.
Step 1, Sell good music.
Step 2, If people don't buy, sue pre-pubesc... oh wait, crap. I mean... uh
something to do with content, I think, umm... uh... How much is tuition at Stanford?

Buy your tickets???

[ThyTurkeyIsDone]

If you'll be in Los Angeles and would like to attend, buy your tickets early.

Nah, I'll just download one from KaZaA.

So...

[theCoder]

Will tomatoes and other rotten fruit be made available with the cost of the ticket, or will you have to bring your own? :)

Hey, we are too

[El_Rancho]

Wow, this is close to home. I am a student at Texas A&M, and the specifics are cloudy, but late in October we are having a similar program. We are hosting the vice-chair of the MPAA, lead counsel for RIAA, a US Rep (whose name and significance I am not sure of, but who I assume has a hand in copyright legislation) and a local "DMCA enforcement agent," whatever that is. I believe the format is going to be just each of them telling us what we could go to jail for, and then lots of Q/A at the end. I'm already putting together a list of toughies for them, so....
If you could ask the lead counsel of the RIAA or any of those other folks one thing, what would it be?