Hilary Rosen Loves Creative Commons

13.7Billion Years writes "Former RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen has written a piece in Wired extolling the virtues of Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons licensing, providing such juicy tidbits as 'I'm still cynical about its origins, but I've come to love Creative Commons,' and 'the industry ought to embrace Creative Commons as an agile partner providing tools for new ways to do business.' She's not quite ready to pooh-pooh the current all-or-nothing licensing regime just yet but this sounds like good progress."

Comments

Rosen's view of copyright..

[doormat]

"Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?"

Uh, perhaps because thats not what the original intent of copyright. Copyright is supposed to be for a limited time, and then to enter the public domain. Property is forever (well, 'til the world ends).

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[pilgrim23]

Indeed so. I have no idea who is owed all the back copy write fees for the works of Aristotle. Think of all those monks in the middle ages making their unauthorized quill pin "rips" of his work... Or the plays of Aristophanes From circa 400BC till 2004 AD there is one heck of a back interest payment. Definitly for the Birds... The current view of copy write law amounts to stupidity. The whole idea was to protect the IP for a "Limited Period of Time".

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[Anonymous Coward]

artists have to do the same things the rest of us do: work for a living.

and if they are successful, they can do the same thing the rest of us can do: leave a big inheritance.

Farmer: has a farm.. gets to leave it to the kids

Artist: has musical instruments.. gets to leave them to their kids

Farmer: makes a crop: can't leave it to the kids, it'll spoil or it got sold already

Artist: makes music: can't leave it to the kids, because they already have it! it's just information!

So, if the kids want to get rich from the farm, WORK THE LAND!

And if you want to get rich from music, WORK THOSE INSTRUMENTS!

as an ex-musician myself, I understand. making CDs (or tapes in my case, it was a while ago). it's a tough business. But you're not entitled to a damn thing, and neither is the plumber, or a doctor.. or anybody else.

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[BillyBlaze]

A farm is capital - a tangible thing you can use to make money, a means of production. You can't farm without a farm. When a farmer dies, he passes his farm, his tractor, etc. to his children, and they use it to make money. If he had money, he passes it to his children also. The creative equivalent of a farm is pens, paper, instruments, recording hardware, and creativity - all of which a musician can pass down to his children. And he can still pass down his money, and he even gets to pass down his name. But a farmer's child isn't guaranteed income unless he farms the farm, thus becoming a productive member of society, so why should an author/musician's child expect to get income unless he writes/sings/etc?

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[cranos]

Copyright is not designed to be a legacy to be passed down from generation. Intellectual Property is not the same as physical property. Ever since the idea of Copyright and IP was born it has always been made quite clear that eventually it goes to the community, this is why there are limits on the amount of time you get a copyright for(even if they are obscenely long).

Ideas should be treated differently from physical possessions, its the only way a culture can truly advance.

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[tdvaughan]

Surely the point is that every artist, writer and otherwise creative person is only able to be creative in that way because they're able to build on the past creativity of others. This is the deal: when you benefit from previous generations' work, fine. Just don't block the next generation from benefitting from your work in the same way. And if what you've made is popular enough then you'll have earnt enough from it to leave your children enough of a legacy for anyone.

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[JanneM]

You can keep your song, and give it to your children, and their children for as many generations as you want. Just keep it for yourself. Of course, with nobody ever being able to hear it outside your family, not many people get any pleasure from it.

What copyright is intended to do is very similar to patents (since ideas tend to be in sort-of the same situation). They grant you a time-limited monopoly on the use of the song - and this is a benefit you did not have without copyright. You pay for that benefit by it being time limited and having your song become public domain after that time ends.

This way both parties win - the holder gets a limited time to make the most of their media/idea, and in return, the public (or society at large) gets full and free use of the media or idea to build on after that period ends.

Note that this deal is totally volontary - if you don't want your song to ever become public domain, then just never release it. But you can't reasonably expect to be granted the gift of a monopoly without ever paying anything back, do you?

Of course, that seems to be what media companies are striving for at the moment...

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[AstroDrabb]

A farmer gets to leave a legacy for his children. You don't.

Dude, you are WAY off. Copyright was supposed to be for a LIMITED time and to create a LIMITED monopoly for the ORIGINAL copyright holder. Not to leave a "legacy" to your children's, children's, children. There is no WAY that the ORIGINAL copyright holder is going to benefit from a copyright 70 years after they are DEAD. How can a person benefit from something after they are dead? That is insane and against the original purposes of copyright.

A copyright owner can still leave a legacy for their children. Then can take the money they make from that copyright and do something good with it so that it is there for their children. Copyright was NEVER about passing it along to your kids. Your kids are not the ORIGINAL copyright holder or author and should have NO right to it. It should be in the public domain. The WHOLE point of copyright is to move works in to the public domain. Not to make sure that some copyright holders kids get a bunch of money.

The problem with copyright is because of people like you who think that the purpose of copyright is to give you an UNLIMITED stream of revenue. The purpose of copyright is to influence the creative arts by giving a LIMITED monopoly to a work. After that LIMITED (IMO 15 - 20 years) time, that work becomes the public domain, thus creating an incentive to CREATE AGIAIN.

Re:Rosen's view of copyright..

[WarmBoota]

So write your goddamn song, sell it as a jingle to Pepsi and buy a goddamn farm. Music and literature are derivitave works that owe their existence to the work of earlier artists.

Take a look at Disney. Instead of contributing back to the Public Domain from which they've built their empire, they hoard their characters (which belong to the common lexicon) and swallow real creative places like Pixar.

Physical property, unlike creative works is limited. That's why we afford it special protection (and why governments choose to levy taxes on certain forms of it). Ideas and creative works are different, not just in their lack of physicality, but in the fact that our use of those ideas is colored by our perceptions and by our life experience. I might see or hear something different in your work and want to emphasize that myself (think decent cover versions of songs).

I really think that artists need to be compensated for their contribution to society, but I don't think that copyright protection should extend past 15-20 years. I am extremely opposed to their children inheriting the rights to their works. Give them the house and the car, but make them get a job for chrissakes!

Finally DRM technologies should be eliminated for the benefit of future generations. What good is copyright expiration if you can't get access to something because the key is lost

Only problem:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice that Mrs Rosen things Creative Commons is nice and all. Only problem: Nobody cares about Mrs Rosen anymore since she isn't RIAA chief anymore.

In other news...

[davmoo]

And next week we'll see Saddam Hussein proclaiming that he is in favor of democracy.

I trust Hilary Rosen to really support Creative Commons about as much as I expect Bill Gates to support Linux.

Re:In other news...

[Midnight Thunder]

And next week we'll see Saddam Hussein proclaiming that he is in favor of democracy.

I trust Hilary Rosen to really support Creative Commons about as much as I expect Bill Gates to support Linux.

People change, as do what influences them. These people in protect their opinions because of their vested interests. If the situation changes, then their point of view may change too. Any smart person is capable of accepting the benefits of someone else's point of view if there are indeed real benefits.

Remember Hilary Rosen is no longer in charge of the RIAA, so she doesn't have to play the same game, even if she still believes in the mantra she preached. In fact reading the article shows that she understands that the record industry is in need of change, but as the same time people should not accept everything for nothing. She sees the CC as choice made by the artist about the accessibility to their works, which is different from someone deciding to do something with a copyrighted piece of work that the copyright does not permit.

Why is she saying this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So she was only doing what she was doing before because she was paid to do it. That's not a big surprise. The only question that comes to mind is who's paying the bitch now?

another day...

[numbski]

another slashdot spamming script.

Goood lord. :\

Anyway, any step toward sanity is a good one, however embracing a license isn't enough for me to start singing around a campfire with them.

Stop suing your customers, then perhaps we'll talk.

BTW, link 'o the day. CmdrTaco on TechTV!
http://www.g4techtv.com/flashpop.aspx?vid eo_key=88 92

The RIAA's attitude in a nutshell

[techno-vampire]

From the article: In a contest of greed versus theft, I suppose I chose greed as the morally superior position.

The RIAA is basing its position on the false dichotomy of either greed or theft. They can't seem to understand that it's possible to protect the artist's rights without draconion measures or royalties that would put a robber baron to shame. Isn't it a shame that Hilary Rosen didn't learn this until she'd left the RIAA and had no more influence over their thinking?

Only natural.

[OccidentalSlashy]

I've seen it so many times before ... at first you are compelled to hang around with the artists and bohemians, no matter what your parents say. This stage is followed by a sort of dull resentment or sometimes outright hostility towards their loose ways and apparent lack of motivation, culminating in a blow-up attempt to get their money, smash their guitars, whatever (that's the part we all saw in her, and hated). Possibly this stems from an inner feeling that she is plain not good enough to be part of that community.

But self-loathing cannot stand on its own, and eventually, it is re-directed in a healthy way -- "I LOVE the commons! What POSSIBILITY!" Yes, Hilary has come full circle at last. The healing has begun. The flame of art has travelled on!

Welcome, Hilary! You're on the good side now! :-)

She loves a free lunch.

[Doc Ruby]

Of course Rosen loves people giving away their creative products. Disney has made a fortune from copyrighting public domain fairy tales. Rosen sees dollars from peddling CC works without paying the authors, once corporate execs find a 21st Century version of the Disney scam. She's cynical about the origins of the CC license, because that community successfully opposed her IP cartel so often.

Supporting rightsholders' decisions...

[turnstyle]

Being in favor of Creative Commons means being in favor of rightsholders making decisions about sharing their works (as well as remixing, etc.)

But to be in favor of rightsholders making those decisions also means accepting them when they decide *not* to share.

If we only care when a rightsholder decides to share, and not if they choose otherwise, then we really don't care about them making that decision.

Re:Supporting rightsholders' decisions...

[An Onerous Coward]

Damn straight. If a copyright holder decides to make full use of the vastly overinflated collection of "rights" that infest modern copyright law, I have no respect for their decision to do so.

Now, if copyrights were much shorter, and copyright law contained clear, sensible guidelines about derivative works that would allow for creativity, and all DRM schemes were required to uphold those guidelines, then the decision "not to share" would be a perfectly respectable one.

Creators should have a certain level of control over their work. By default, copyright law grants them "rights" far in excess of that level. In such a climate, the decision not to share amounts to being a complete and utter prick.

[This post licensed under the "Do Whatever the Hell You Want With It" License v.2.0 or later.]

Re:Supporting rightsholders' decisions...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Preaching to the choir, eh? :) From the article:

Lessig also complained about the Copyright Term Extension Act, which adds several years to the terms of protected works. I countered: Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?

So does she figure that the particular portion of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to secure for a limited time the rights to Creative Works to Artists, for the long-term goal of securing them for society has anything at all to do with property law? It doesn't. There's no comparison.

The deal is, you can have your copyright, but you must give us your work. Copyright isn't some way to make kids that haven't been born yet rich off their asses. It's a way to provide creative types with an opportunity to make money from their work as an incentive to do more work. Copyright is all about the benefit to society, and has very little to do with Artists' Rights.

Blah, she doesn't get it. She's a puppet of the record industry, not the musicians. The labels the RIAA represents, the ones that actually make money, own the copyrights to the music they distribute (with a few exceptions). Peel away the bullshit, and she was right about one thing.

In a contest of greed versus theft, I suppose I chose greed as the morally superior position.

Nothing to see here. Move along. ;)

Re:Convenient

[AstroDrabb]

This is how all political people or people influenced by money are. She acts one way while she is getting "paid", and changes her tune once she is no longer a part of that organization. It is really sad. She says this now, however, if she were to get her old position back, I would bet any sum of cash that she would not be singing the same tune. The RIAA would never go for a license like this, it doesn't give them enough "control".

Last pagraph response

[Famatra]

"Slashdot crowd who think that society would be better off if artists and writers knew their place -- give away your stuff for free"

It isn't about their place in society. I would mostly be content with these writiers and artists not turning so called 'society' into a police state so they could squeeze that extra last dollar out of someone who likely was not going to, or able to afford, that song / book etc.

"If somebody violates your copyright, don't fight back too hard"

Copyright is artifical, you do know this? People speak as if it comes from on high, but it is a law and one that can be changed or even repealed.

"If you have the same aspirations of being a millionaire..." ...then I suggest you choose another profession other than author since the current state of technology, that allows unlimited copying, means the current structure of making gobs of money off keeping the masses ignorant and information deprived are over.

"A farmer gets to leave a legacy for his children. You don't."

I thought children were peoples' legacy ;), anyhow I see no reason why these content makers dont have a legacy. Leaving the world one's ideas that are shared and distributed freely is more of a legacy than having your life's work being sealed away by your children, dispensed out on *their* whim for *their* profit.

Problem with "Farmers" Analogy

[Roger_Wilco]

Ms. Rosen argued: "Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?"

There's at least one difference; when I die, my heirs must pay considerable inheritance taxes. Do there exist inheritance taxes on ownership of copyright? If it's to be considered a kind of property, such taxes should exist (or they shouldn't on real property; personally I believe that each person should do their best on their own, i.e. inheritance should be forbidden, but I don't know how to implement this without massive corruption).

I recommend Lessig's book, Free Culture for a great deal of discussion on copyright and related issues. The FSF sent its members a copy recently; you should join --- everybody else is doing it.

Ha

[ScrewMaster]

I'm cynical about everything and anything that comes out of Hilary Rosen's mouth. In fact, anything that woman "embraces" is something I will need to be more careful about in the future. And that applies equally well to Cary Sherman and Jack Valenti, for that matter.

Re:Hilary Rosen

[chrisd]

So since she wasn't murdering people and instead concentrated on suing 12 year old s and reducing our freedoms, she deserves a cookie or something?

Chris DiBona

Re:Amiga MODs are machine-readable sheet music

[PenguiN42]

"Audacity project" or "multichannel Ogg (Vorbis or FLAC) stream" anyone?

But what about effects for the mixdown? Or post-processing that's done in the mastering step? Sure, you could give everyone your raw tracks and the instructions to put them back together, but if they don't have that $2000 compressor, what's the point?

Anyway, one would probably want to use the .OMF format, which is readable by most pro audio software out there. ... but what if they recorded to 2" tape? Should they go and digitize all the tracks for you? You're not gonna end up being able to "compile" the same end result if you don't have their $40,000 console, anyway. And what if they bounce tracks down to save room? The original tracks are gone by that point.

You just described tracked music, which includes machine-readable instrument definitions (as a sample bank) and machine-readable sheet music (as a note sequence) in a file. Common formats for tracked music include .mod, .s3m, .xm, or .it formats. Other machine-readable sheet music formats, which reference (but do not completely define) the instruments, include .ly (Lilypond) and .mid (standard MIDI file format). Compare the concepts of "transparent" and "opaque" used in the GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org].

But tracker formats may not be sufficient to reproduce the entire range of synthesized and sampled music out there, especially when you consider the thousands upon thousands of sequencers, samplers, synthesizers, drum machines, and controllable effects, both software and hardware based, including some old vintage analog stuff, much of which might not be built anymore, and most of which is hella expensive.

Besides, this whole "compatable with GPL" thing rings a big "NOT APPLICABLE" in my head when talking about music. What do "source code" and "compiling" and "object code" mean when you're talking about music? How can you expect to be able to reproduce the "object code" the same way every time, and still leave room for artistic expression?

Compare to the GNU Free Documentation License. They don't require pictures in a document covered under said license to be packaged with the sketches, or all the Gimp layers used to create the image, along with instructions on what filters to use to combine them. The final result is all that matters in that case.

Re:Stones and glass houses

[Tim C]

To be fair, the OP didn't say that her past behaviour was redeemed by the article either, just that it demonstrated that there's more to her character than one would think from reading past articles and comments here. That's not exactly hard though; taking the highly-rated comments as being the "opinion of slashdot", it would be hard to find a less one-dimensional picture on most topics; things here tend to be very, very polarised, at least to my eyes.

That's hardly unique to slashdot though; wherever you have debates about emotive topics, you'll find polarisation of opinion and a complete unwillingness to accept or even listen to opposing viewpoints. It does seem to be taken to quite an extreme here at times, though.