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

Convenient

[Hatta]

Shame she's not in a position of power anymore. Funny how this happens after she leaves.

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..

[GlassHeart]

you're an artist, and if wandering the countryside in search of scraps was good enough for artists of the 13th century, it's good enough for you. In short -- know your place. A farmer gets to leave a legacy for his children. You don't.

Sorry, what stops an artist from selling art and buying some land to pass on to his or her children?

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..

[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..

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Such a philosophy doesn't sit well with a portion of the Slashdot crowd who think that society would be better off if artists and writers knew their place -- give away your stuff for free, and hope that you make money by playing live concerts or live book readings. If somebody violates your copyright, don't fight back too hard -- you should be lucky to get what you get. And a big hearty fuck-you if you're uppity enough to put copy protection or DRM on your work -- what's done with your work should be the choice of the Slashdotter, not you. If you have the same aspirations of being a millionaire that, say, a (insert typical Slashdotter profession here) has, check yourself -- you're an artist, and if wandering the countryside in search of scraps was good enough for artists of the 13th century, it's good enough for you. In short -- know your place. A farmer gets to leave a legacy for his children. You don't.

[wearily] The people who say this kind of thing are hardly ever artists or writers themselves. Very often they're parasites (like Rosen and Valenti) who want to get rich off artists' work, however.

I am a writer, among other things; I make a not-insignificant amount of money off writing, and you can be damn sure I want every penny my books earn. However -- I do not believe that my work is perpetually my property, or that of my heirs; perhaps more to the point, I do not believe that it is perpetually the property of my publisher, or any corporation, and most especially not of scumsuckers like the RIAA, the MPAA, or Disney (this last being mentioned because it's largely due to the Mouse's efforts that we have the absurdly extended copyright laws we do.) The government makes, or is supposed to make, a deal with the creators of original work: you put your work out there for people to enjoy (and hopefully buy) and in return, we will protect your right to profit from that work for a limited time. Period. If you don't like it, lobby to amend the Constitution.

My equivalent of a farmer's field is not my book. That would be my computer, which is unlikely to be of any use to my children by the time I die ... My books are the equivalent of a farmer's crop. No rational person would argue that farmers should be paid in perpetuity for crops they harvest once.

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

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?

Re:Why is she saying this?

[LostCluster]

who's paying the bitch now?

The answer to that is on page 2 of the article...
Hilary Rosen, former chair and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, is a business and political commentator on CNBC and an adviser to media and technology companies.

Basically, she's a professional pundit now.

Really odd

[blueskies]

No one finds it really odd that suddenly she writes an article supporting the CC? What's in it for her? What is the underlying motive?

Maybe she is trying to subvert the CC from within?

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?

Err did I miss

[Alci12]

Hell freezing over?

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.

Hilary Rosen

[Infonaut]

In this article Rosen revealed a bit of herself. She's not the one-dimensional creature that a lot of RIAA-haters have made her out to be. Her position at the RIAA was never easy:

The presumption in these attacks was that Rosen was calling the plays for the music business and not the other way around. She seems to prefer it that way; she gets paid $1 million a year to shelter the executives from criticism. But in fact, according to those closest to her, she's not the hard-liner in the crusade against file-sharing. Yes, she's the frontwoman. But there are five CEOs backing her up - and some of them make her look like Mary Poppins. "They still think they should put teenagers in jail," says technology guru Esther Dyson. In fact, Rosen tried to steer the labels toward the online future long before they saw it coming. In the mid-'90s, Rosen brought Dyson to a conference of music executives to brief them on how technology would transform their business. Dyson described for them the inevitability of digital delivery, an eventuality Rosen says she had begun to understand but wanted her bosses to hear from an outsider. But as Dyson spoke, the label executives became defensive, then furious. By all accounts, the meeting devolved into a shouting match.

Sure, as the head honcho at the RIAA she was on the wrong side of a lot of issues, but she's not exactly Pol Pot either.

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

Sole Stated Purpose of Copyright

[Roger_Wilco]

It has nothing to do with protecting anybody, but only encouraging progress. See Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:

Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Re:Pooh-pooh?

[Synonymous Yellowbel]

I am sorry but never in my life did I encounter the expression pooh-pooh, can someone please enlighten me?

It basically just means to dismiss, disparage or criticise (depending on the context).

steve

Re:incompatable with gpl

[macshit]

What the hell more do you want? The individual unmixed tracks ready to load up in Pro Tools (or should they use a more OSS-friendly file format)? The instruments they were played on and sheet music to go with it?

Yes?

Throw Bill Gates' head in too and I'll even say thank you!

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.

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: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.