Slashdot Mirror
Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits
Newer Guy writes "Former RIAA head Hilary Rosen now believes that the RIAA is wrong by pursuing their lawsuits of individuals for using P2P programs.
In a blog post, she writes that she believes the lawsuits have 'outlived their usefulness' and states that the content providers really need to come up with their own download systems. She also is down on DRM, calling Apple's DRM 'a pain.'"
My work here is dung.
...which one of you hacked Hillary Rosen's blog...?
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
That's all well and good, but I want to hear about how the Current head of the RIAA believes these things.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
She seems to have had a change of heart. She tries to back peddle on her record a bit. But you have to give her credit for seeing that the RIAA is on a bad course.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Since this seems to stand in direct contradiction with everything we (or, at least, I) thought about her in the past, does that mean that Rosen, like any other CEO, will do whatever they think their current employer needs, regardless of personal opinion about it?
Even if the RIAA did start to go down the "sue individuals" after she left, it seems unlikely that this is not a direction she helped point the organization in.
Shachar
Would hell be considered "vendor lock-in"?
I suspect that the RIAA members are just re-living the tempest in a teapot we had in the software businesses: we used to ship programs with all sorts of expensive copy protection devices.
One of my employers then shipped their product without protection and saw no difference whatsoever in the rate of copying. So they dropped the "dongle", and saved precious dollars by doing so.
Now my publisher and others are doing the same thing with electronic copies of their books, with similar good results.
I expect we'll see the same with both music and movies. Commercial copiers will be dealt with by the courts, and individuals will be so minor a problems as to be ignored.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
When she was head of the RIAA, they had one lawsuit after the other to people that were either innocent or had downloaded one or two mp3 files. They didn't go after the big guys.
They didn't dare to go after the big guys.
Now that she is no longer head of the RIAA, she says - I'd might have been not 100 % right what we have done... DRM might not be so usefull (she is having problems with her iPod?).
Anyway - this is so low, I cannot even reach that low...
Sorry, Hillary - once you're on the wrong side of the hallway, you will allways stay there. Whatever you do.
-- Mark
Note that she only said that Apple's *proprietary DRM* is a pain.
I'm guessing she's all for DRM, as long as it is inter-operable.
That still puts her squarely in the evil pro-DRM camp.
After all the things she's done to us, her customers, I don't think I can ever trust that woman.
http://ward.vandewege.net/blog/
This isn't att all because she wants to make a bit of money on the side giving lectures at universities or being a talking head?
Nowhere in the linked article do these words exist. What Rosen actually says is that Apple's "propietary [sic] DRM just bugs me," which is a quite different message in tone and substance--it's not the DRM itself that she finds annoying, but rather Apple's unwillingness to share.
Note to submitters: Don't invent quotes out of thin air, especially when you encase them in quote marks, for Chrissake.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
No, I think we should take this and publicize it as much as possible. Point out to your MP, Senator, Resident Dictator, or whoever that the person who used to espouse DRM and P2P lawsuits is now saying they're pointless and "a pain." /.ers have very little pull in political circles, but Hillary Rosen, even though she's been a PITA before, now appears to be on our side. And she does have a lot of pull in political circles. Let's use that to our advantage.
A bunch of
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Where is that quote about 'a pain' from? It's not anywhere in the linked article.
And there's always the cynical view of "Apple's DRM is a pain because with a single company dominating the market we can't play competing stores off against each other like we used to".
bECAUSE IT IS AS STUPID AS shit !! this has got to stop !!
I agree.
If she thinks suing is wrong, then why the fuck did she allow anyone to be sued? What a hypocrite. I'll believe this when I hear that she is ordering all the money taken from dead people and 13-year-old girls and Mac users and all the other wrongfully-sued people be returned, but I don't see any hint of that. I'll believe that when the lawsuits stop.
Actions speak louder than words, and talk is cheap. Put our money where your mouth is, or fuck off.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Futhermore, she adds, "You guys are right, ok? So will someone please be my friend?"
I believe her comments are hypocritical, and I don't believe she's sincere. Or, to put it colloquially, "I'll forgive her when Vietnam Veterans forgive Hanoi Jane, or when the Jews forgive Hitler."
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
If she thinks suing is wrong, then why the fuck did she allow anyone to be sued?
She didn't. She says she had left before they started suing individuals.
What a hypocrite.
Where's the hypocrisy? As far as I know she never did it, or advocated it, why is saying it's wrong hypocrisy?
I'll believe this when I hear that she is ordering all the money taken from dead people and 13-year-old girls and Mac users and all the other wrongfully-sued people be returned
How would she order that? She's no longer with the RIAA, how would she have the authority to do that?
I'll believe that when the lawsuits stop.
She's no longer with the RIAA, how would she have the authority to do that?
I have no intent of redistributing the music and films that they represent. But I would like to be assures that if I create something ... be it a song, a video, or a piece of software ... that I'm free to distribute my creation to all who will take it; and if I want to allow them to build on it, that the RIAA will keep out of my way.
I have other ways of getting money. Not as much as she gets, but enough. Writing software to order, teaching people to use it, and guaranteeing it, mostly.
The spelling nazis should have a field day with that post in her blog.
Oh. Best so far is here , or direct torrent link here .
Ok, fess up, how many of you have downloaded gigs of MP3s before with no intention of going out to see the band live or buy the merchandise? DRM exists primarily because many college students today enjoy a quasi-middle class lifestyle on campus and still rape and pillage the file sharing networks. I'd be a lot less cynical if I didn't see a lot of the guys I knew flat out not give two shits about supporting small bands because they'd rather buy a case of beer than actually pay for the music they listened to at the party or in their apartment/dorm. And I'm not talking about bands like Metallica, but Lacuna Coil, Nightwish, theStart and others like them.
What we need is less DRM and more basic law enforcement action. It'd be a lot more effective for them to monitor bandwidth usage on campus and then start "wiretapping" students who are heavy users to see just what the hell they're doing. Chances are, it ain't home movies, porn or Linux ISOs they're sending.Then send them a bill for $5-$10/file traded illegally. Treat it like a minor property crime like stealing a candy bar and maybe juries will actually go for it.
DRM a pain? I agree, but wasn't it the RIAA's clients who demanded DRM'd downloads in the first place?
Karma Schmarma
Rosen's blog points out that it was in her "role as Chairman and CEO of the Recording Indsutry [sic] Assciation [sic] of America" that she participated in planning the lawsuits. I suppose that means that in her "role" as a private citizen she had some objection to them.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there can be a difference between a person's public and private opinions. In Rosen's case, maybe the difference is extreme. If she really didn't support the lawsuits, maybe that's the reason that she resigned - who knows. But somehow it seems kind of slimey to chair an organization like the RIAA while the decisions are being made, then take the position that she bears no responsibility for the lawsuits because she'd already made the decision to leave:
I don't honestly know what I would have done about the individual lawsuits had I stayed. I certainly participated in multiple planning and debate sessions about them. There were good arguments on both sides and the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people who work hard to protect their constituency. Thankfully my plan to leave was firmly in place and I didn't have to make that tough call or take the heat for the one that was made.
The CEO isn't a dictator - decisions are commonly made in companies that the CEO doesn't necessarily agree with, but that carry the support of other executives. But it's pretty craven to let a plan go forward, then quit and say that you really had nothing to do with it because you were going to quit anyway.
But what really caught my eye was the extraordinary amount of misspellings and basic grammar errors in her blog entry. I'm no grammar nazi, but I have to say that I was stunned.
Oh yeah, to the submitter of the story: Rosen says that Apple's proprietary DRM "bugs" her. Hilary Rosen can say stupid things on her own - you don't need to make quotes up.
-h-
If you actually talked to her you would probably find out that she had agreed to law suits in the begining because she wanted to make examples of some of the worst offenders; after the initial run of law suits they had no longer served any purpose because they would no loger get any press and they would not scare people from downloading music any more.
Now, DRM is mostly usless and has a negative impact on legitimate users while it has no impact on illegal copies of music/movies/etc; this is because no matter how strong your copy protection is on passive media formats someone will eventually break the protection (potentially at a quality cost, ie. camera footage of a movie screen) and the unauthorized copies will be free of all DRM.
Now, both of these problems have continued in spite of anything she could have any control over; companies like Apple and Microsoft have been completely willing to develop the DRM and convince content providers to use it, and Record Companies have been looking for blood because of poorer than expected sales (honesly, if I was them, I'd look at the crappy artists that they sign). Her position was to make the Record companies happy, so the lawsuits continued regardless of whether they served any further benefit; and the DRM continued to be developed because she had no control over it.
Amazing, really. Whoever supplies their paycheque is always in the right, no matter how wrong they are.
Paid by RIAA? Why, p2p is the very apocalypse itself and the terrorists who participate in it must be thrown in gaol until their flesh rots off their bones!
Not paid by RIAA any more? Why, p2p is the essence of puppies and kittens and all that is goodness and light in this world!
What a stone-cold bitch.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Who's paying her to say that total opposite position, now that the RIAA isn't paying her to say the stupid original?
--
make install -not war
Comment removed based on user account deletion
She says the lawsuits "have outlived most of their usefulness". Okay, that's a start. But when, if ever, will she admit that they were simply morally flawed and a blackmail scheme?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Algerath
I just think about someone who comitted horrific crimes and then they're sorry.
<SARCASM>
Oh well yeah it's ok then....
</SARCASM>
You might not think about Hilary's action being equal to horrific crime but think about the countless lives that have been ruined by her actions as head of the RIAA.
Why didn't you see the light when it actually made a difference? Karma's a bitch Hilary. People may forgive you, karma will not.
At some point, I will write more comprehensively about those years and these issues....then again, maybe not. For someone on the other side of the fence, she should take a stance on the pros and cons of it all. Maybe she could make others on her side of that fence understand the scope in better fashion. "Maybe not" to me means she doesn't take the issue as serious as she would like some to think since she doesn't seem convincing with her "maybe maybe not" attitude. I can relate to what she states concerning those sued who were making businesses, but how about going after and pressuring those who promote it and condemn it at the same time... For instance, how many MS commercials have you seen promoting MS as something that can "burn and share your music!". How about having those companies explain it all for those who don't know then fining them for not following orders... Supposing you had a locksmith company touting "now you can crack safes too!" ... For certain kinds of locksmiths (safe crackers), they need to be registered. Shouldn't they face penalties for scammish advertising... "now you can be a REGISTERED locksmith too!"...
There is a p2p program I used for a second. I found all the songs I wanted to find... Guess what? They all had expiring licenses which allowed me to hear the song for a week. No burning, no sharing, etc. I thought it was a neat idea. I generally look for new things to buy instead of wasting my hard earned money for a 16 track album to find 1 good song. I'd rather have the album anyway. Maybe those in industry should work to create better guidelines. By now they should know telling a whole bunch of geeks, GenX'ers, etc "no you cant!" will only lead to rebellion... Maybe they should try taking a different approach.
Infiltrated dot Net
Sounds like it could be sour grapes. Just a thought.
La La La La!
I'M NOT LISTENING!
Linux is great! Open Source is great! Rosen is Bad!
La La La La!
1) Most of the $ from the album purchase is not going to the artist. It's going to the distributor. Technology has advanced to the point where the means of distribution has become dirt cheap. Yet these distributors still demand outrageous cuts of the money. And the artists are stupid enough to still indulge them. Downloading MP3z is an act of civil disobedience and wake up call to the distributors that evolution discarded them a long time ago. They're on life support. Time to pull the plug. Market forces already beheaded them. But like a roach with its head cut off, the RIAA is putting up a frantic display of death throes. The lawsuits are just a perverted way to unnaturally extend their lifespans. Beware the smell of formaldehyde.
2) Copying is not stealing. If I touched your sofa, produced an exact copy, and walked off with the copy, guess what? You still have the original. I did not steal from you. I did not take your property. I am not denying you further enjoyment of your own sofa. Calling music "intellectual property" is an attempt at brain-washing the masses. They want people to create this false mental link between "copying" and "stealing". So they'll erroneously believe copying=stealing, and all the negativity and sense of wrongness they attribute to stealing, they'll also attribute to copying. Fight back. Stop swallowing their BS. Copying != Stealing. Screaming otherwise, no matter how many times, won't make that change.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
Guess now we know why she's the [b]PREVIOUS[/b] head of the RIAA. The infidels will be dealt with swiftly and without prejudice!
Whatever view you have of Hilary Rosen, don't comfortably hold your opinion, as it is possible that much of her blog post was poorly composed by the top dominating member of her life, the Reality Acquisition Device, and quite possibly tells her what to think! "But it was the Reality Acquisition Device that really got my attention. As Gates describes it, we'll hold a portable device much like our Blackberries, Treos and the new Motorola Q that Gates was holding, and place it in front of us as we move through life. Our surroundings will be illuminated by more information - more reality. Have we been here before? where did we go? are there buildings or businesses that our social network of friends have told us about? what are the local issues related to those we have already expressed concerned about that the device remembers? As he is talking I am thinking about what a magnificent political organizing tool this is connecting old fashioned grassroots organizing principles with tools for feedback and action. Then he says something about how it will tell us about the restaurants in the area based on the food it knows we like to eat." Catch that? Gates? This blood hungry capitalist uses Windows to watch lesbian porn, and must pay loads, happily, due to DRM from the Windows codec! Every lesbian has a craving for it. Since she's too upperclass and civil to download from a peer to peer network, she is easily a proponent of DRM. These clues, which I have cleverly rendered together myself using higher end logic most Slashdot moderators would never dare to see at the end of the judgement tunnel, unconditionally proves it. She clearly has the testosterone to cold-heartedly have this view *and* whore herself to to the Huffington Post! Really, anyone who responds in opposition is a fascist. :-)
Au contraire, my friend. A bunch of
That the RIAA/MPAA is actually a dangerous cult completely out of touch with reality!
Look, this woman has escaped and now the effects of their brainwashing are starting to wear off.
Amen brother. Mod parent up.
If you do not buy any merchandise AND download their albums, you just leave the bands in debt. Your "civil disobedience" doesn't help these bands at all because you're not building an alternative marketplace. You're just copying music, and leaving the bands with no money to live on or pay off their debt. Basically, from their point of view, you're not a fan, you're just an asshole who's miserly with his money.
People like you cannot accept the fact that intellectual property doesn't come out of thin air. If you do not pump in real money into A system, not necessarily THE EXISTING system, you won't allow IP creators to actually live of their works and keep making new works. If bands cannot stand to make good money when they get good and command respect among audiences, how can they justify touring and recording new works? If you're not willing to go see them live and/or buy merchandise, how can they compensate for money they didn't make on recordings?
Artists will still make art, but you won't get it nearly as easily as you do today if you go into your socialistic model that blatantly hates the idea of having to compensate them financially for their work. You may think that by "sticking it to the man," you're sticking it to the eeeeeevil corporations, but you're not. They just nimbly duck out of the way and let your sharp stick stab the artist behind them. Your way of "freeing the artists" makes as much since as saying that stealing from and firebombing the property of plantation owners is a more effective way of freeing slaves than getting them their freedom and creating an economy that can supply them with productive jobs.
When are you people gong to wake up and realize that shaitand cares only about making a name for themselves and can't give a flying fuck about you slahsdotters? As for which platform they chose for cuisinewiki, if they fought for using a WIKI, they probably just thought about the bottom line, not for the sake of their clients. Shaitand continues to lock anyone without a computer and web broswer out of access to all those recipes - obviously one of the most vile anti-cooking organizations out there.
See, kids - isn't that easy and fun?
I think this explains perfectly why she is no longer employed there.. :(
Would you like me to put you in the Loosest Set of Handcuffs ever invented? $18.95 today only.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
This is obviously preparing her to run for office as a "protector of the people".
You don't think she's any more trustworthy now than before do you? When someone has proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted, why would you trust their "conversion"?
I'll wait for some proof a bit stronger than a public statement before I start taking anything she says are worthy of belief. "Actions speak louder than words" may not be true, but I find them much more convincing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...when THEY are the ones who are at the wrong side of the baton.
Somebody who used to be in charge saying things should be different. It's like I always say, Take everything a newfound friend says with a grain of salt. Who's the money behind them and what are their goals.
So let me get this straight you advocating tapping peoples internet connection solely based on the fact they are a heavy user? So who draws the line at heavy user? My wife plays SL heavily and uses over 30GB of bandwidth a month should that give ANYONE just cause to tap my internet connection? How about the fact that I retuinly (and unfortunetly) download 5-10 GB of updates per month for the syustems i'm working on? Than throw in some linux ISO's, a little bit of pron ;), and even the vista Beta 2 download and my small household uses 50+ GB's a month. without downloading any illegeal MP3's, Movies, or software.
So tell me again why that means they should have the right to wiretap my internet connection?
Or we could vote for the Democrats, who are in the pocket of corporations. Nope...that doesn't work either.
Or we could vote for an independent, but they'll never get elected, because 90% of the US population are stupid, short-sighted pricks who'll only vote for something if they know it might win.
Yeah, voting seems like a real good option, there.....
Now, that's the best idea anybody's had all year. We all know it's possible....so why don't you (I'm in Canada...I can't) make sure the next winner of a federal election is Chuck E. Cheese?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I don't think the RIAA wishes to mandate your use of DRM on what you create. They just want to use it on what they own (and force your computers and other playback devices to respect that), but you're free to distribute your own creations any way you like. (Assuming, that is, that your "creation" isn't just a remix of their creation.)
I suppose they'd be perfectly happy to have you not use DRM. They figure people will copy your work for free, you'll make no money, and quit competing with them.
Well, consider these cases then.
What if somebody were to contribute something to a P2P community like, for instance, a set of cute animations that demonstrated some principles of differential calculus.
Or another example, let's say maybe somebody does a nice looking GTK interface for a set of existing GNU apps to get something done and then uploads them to let everybody use them for free?
And then let's say another case an interesting looking girl uploads some videos of herself masturbating on camera onto this free public network.
Another person scans a PDF of a cool old book that is out of print and makes it available to the public on this P2P network.
Okay, those people have now contributed creative works to the public commons. All of their contributions are minor and trivial taken apart, but as a whole, indexed and sorted by a database they start to add into something substantial. So, why shouldn't these participants in the new media content of the network be allowed to withdraw old material from the public common in return for their contributions? Don't you see how this is to everyone's benefit?
Now make contributions nothing more than an honor system and you have essentially the P2P networks that already exist. What's wrong with it? It's to the advantage of literally millions and potentially billions of people alive today and it is to the detriment of a very small group composed principally of lawyers in the US. Is that right? Do you think those lawyers are making substantial contributions of the sort I've mentioned?
The RIAA sue policy only works while it is cheap. That is why they only sue people who can't afford to fight back.
Wouldn't be interesting if someone would do some stats on the victims and were to discover that they were mostly from a minority racial group?
Simply put, she is now feeling the pain when the shoe is on the other foot.
You can still actually listen to the music without having to insert a quarter.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Mac users? How the hell did that slip in there? How are Mac-users any more wrongfully sued than anyone else. Lots of them download music too.
SHE WAS ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS?
She's still up against the wall fodder. Neumberg style.
The Democrats are as big of - if not greater - whores to the media companies than the Republicans are.
I'm a bleeding heart, practically, and I deeply resent that of the Dems. This kind of crap is why anyone who cares should be _writing_ letters to their congress-critters and expressing their view, regardless of political affiliation.
Yes, its all about what your employeer wants, and the all mighty buck.
Everyone has their 'sell-out' price. Apparently the salary she was being paid while at the RIAA was past that price for her.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Now she is paid to have the opposite opinion, that's all.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
FTA: "..the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people ..."
Sure, like the time the RIAA sued a dead granny who never had a computer even when she was alive. Or the time they turned their lawers on a 13 year old girl who "allegedly downloaded music off a P2P service...". Please. The RIAA just cares about screwing anybody they can in order to get $$$'s.
If you do not buy any merchandise AND download their albums, you just leave the bands in debt. Your "civil disobedience" doesn't help these bands at all because you're not building an alternative marketplace. You're just copying music, and leaving the bands with no money to live on or pay off their debt. Basically, from their point of view, you're not a fan, you're just an asshole who's miserly with his money.
People like you cannot accept the fact that intellectual property doesn't come out of thin air. If you do not pump in real money into A system, not necessarily THE EXISTING system, you won't allow IP creators to actually live of their works and keep making new works. If bands cannot stand to make good money when they get good and command respect among audiences, how can they justify touring and recording new works? If you're not willing to go see them live and/or buy merchandise, how can they compensate for money they didn't make on recordings?
Artists will still make art, but you won't get it nearly as easily as you do today if you go into your socialistic model that blatantly hates the idea of having to compensate them financially for their work. You may think that by "sticking it to the man," you're sticking it to the eeeeeevil corporations, but you're not. They just nimbly duck out of the way and let your sharp stick stab the artist behind them. Your way of "freeing the artists" makes as much since as saying that stealing from and firebombing the property of plantation owners is a more effective way of freeing slaves than getting them their freedom and creating an economy that can supply them with productive jobs.
Let me reply by way of reposting one of my replies to someone else who thought that artists should rely on selling recordings as a buisiness model.
""Ummm, no. That's your take on the issue. As an artist myself I think you are full of it. I don't create works solely for profit, but when I do enter a contract to create commercial works I expect that my contract would be honored and I get paid for it. Also, if I produce work to sell on my own to pay my bills I don't think anyone has a right to that work wihtout my permission.
As another artist speaking, that's just your take on the issue also. I think *you* are the one "full of it". You are not forced to enter into a contract to create "commercial works". That is your buisiness decision. Noone gauruntees that every buisiness must make a profit. If you base a buisiness on an unreasonable buisiness model, it will fail. If I canned air and tried to sell it with the expectation that the government would make free air illegal, I would expect to fail.
My band has a CD that we sell. It did not take the resources of a major label or studio to accomplish this. We know it is silly to expect people to not share an experience they enjoy with others. Therefore, we take advantage of this basic human trait, and encourage people to share it, copy it, put it on P2P, whatever. The increased exposure and word-of-mouth advertising is something that we couldn't pay any label or marketer for at any price. We consider recordings to be a promotional tool, not the goal or the main way of gaining income.
We are smart enough to realize that the majority of people who enjoy quality music are happy to reasonably compensate an artist they favor, along with knowing that treating them as criminals is counterproductive.
Likewise, we are also astute enough to not depend on such ephemeral and risky by nature buisiness models to pay our bills. We cover that with a quite conventional income model: we work for a living. We play clubs, theatres, fests, etc. and our income is paid in the form of tickets, cover-charges, and signed CDs and mechandise by the people that come to the show to be entertained.
The era where production and promotional costs, and the necessity to produce a physical medium and transport, warehouse, and sell it in a physical store, along with the expense and difficulty for individuals of making
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Back when I first started using the iTunes music store, I told myself that if I ever had problems with the DRM, I could just use Hymn to un-DRM everything. But Hymn has let me down; it still doesn't work with iTunes 6. I'm considering taking a crack at breaking it myself.
Forgive my ignorance if it turns out that there is an obvious answer.....
For some time now, I have been reacking my feeble brain wondering.....what is the legal basis for the RIAA to file these lawsuits in the first place?
I was always under the impression that a case for copyright infringement needed to be brought by the actual copyright holder. There are probably many thousands of copyright holders, both individual and corporate, represented by the files flinging their way through cyberspace on the P2P nets. And, to the best of my knowledge, the RIAA doesn't actually hold any copyrights.
So, why are they even a party in these lawsuits? I understand they are representing the alleged interests of the recording companies -- fair enough. But are they legally entitled to sue on behalf of each and every copyright holder in their fold? Is there some blanket legal agreement that allows them to do this, with or without the permission, cooperation, or even knowledge of the concerns whose copyrights are being "defended?"
I can see a smart judge asking the RIAA, "exactly which copyrights to which of the songs at issue does your organization hold?" Well, none, your honor. He should ask exactly which specific songs have been illegaly distributed by the defendant, who holds the copyrights of each of those tracks, and then insist that they themselves must individually bring suit in this matter, then throw the RIAA case out of court.
So, how exactly does this work? I've never studied law, so perhaps my assumptions are pure bullshit and you will mock my ignorance.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Philosophistry
As an Army veteran, I've got to set you straight on this one. The U.S. Generals who are complaining about the government policies today would have been in violation of military orders and subject to disciplinary action, to include courts martial, if they said anything that was not approved by their superiors while they were active duty. Once they left the service, they resumed their status as normal U.S. citizens, and could say anything that was not covered by an NDA (like classified material, which is always covered by an NDA that is kept on file for 75 years).
Rosen is a more clear case of personal ambition over ethics and logic.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Translation: I enjoyed working with other people at the RIAA who were pulling down six to eight figure incomes -- like me!
Translation: I don't like the iPod because I'm not getting a piece of the action.
My reaction: the iPod is too small? What is big enough? Vinyl? Now there's twelve inches of love, baby!
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Your "civil disobedience" doesn't help these bands at all because you're not building an alternative marketplace.
When prohibition was in effect in the states, moonshine and speakeasys (both illegal) certainly brought about the repeal.
We can't force *AA to adopt a different distribution model, but we can sure show them what we want.
nt
Nothing against the parent post, but I think it illustrates a point that I'd like to make about the Slashdot moderation system: I don't think it should be possible to have a +5 reply to a -1. That is: either everything under a -1 should be automatically capped at -1 (not recommended), or +5 replies to a -1 should automatically raise the rating of the -1 to at least +4 (my actual suggestion). Such a system would discourage people from replying to trolls, and it would reward those that actually stimulate discussion.
Clearly the moderation system has failed if a post rated at -1 provokes a +5 reply: At least one of them is obviously moderated incorrectly.
but you're free to distribute your own creations any way you like. (Assuming, that is, that your "creation" isn't just a remix of their creation.)
OK, so if I create something, how can I determine whether or not it is in fact an accidental remix of something copyrighted to a major publisher?
There's a huge limit that everyone will eventually hit with Apple's DRM.
When iPods are no longer popular/available, and people want a different music device, they can say goodbye to their collection!
Consumer rights groups should be, at the very least, issuing warnings to consumers about DRM.
If you read carefully, you find she expresses almost no opinion at all:
I don't honestly know what I would have done about the individual lawsuits had I stayed. .... the lawsuits have outlived most of their usefulness
It's all very slimy and favorable talk about something she knows that people hate. The only conclusion we can draw is that she thinks they were "useful".
It's obvious that we have to look further than this apologetic press release by a has been. RIAA policy and actions speak volumes more than her words. Her record is available for all to see. As you would expect, it was all about protecting established interests: DRM, DMCA, crushing Napster and Grockster. Her work was essentially expanding the RIAA artist "protection" racket into the very medium that would other wise set them free. Her blog continues in this line:
That's the same old bullshit. What it boils down to is that everyone should pay them, our way or the highway and no one else prospers. It's excellence by exclusion instead of competition.
Fuck them. As she has noticed, by her annoyance with the best non-free music service selling RIAA crap, it's not going to work. The factors that created the RIAA, scarcity and government control of the airwaves, are gone. It's easy enough to prosper when others don't try to limit and control distribution channels.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
i'm sorry, did hell just freeze over?
That's a litigation question, not a DRM question. But yeah, you can get screwed hard on it, like the George Harrison plagiarism case. I've got no advice for you on that one, except to find a less litigious country or a better lawyer.
Former RIAA head Hilary Rosen found faceplanted in remote ditch. Local sheriff suspects foul play, who was also later found in same remote ditch.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I guess you really do think that major figures who worked with major organizations in the past don't have any influence at all over those major organizations that they worked with for so long and were paid so much by.
What a Bizarro World. Ever notice that former US Presidents do plenty to affect government policies, even though they're no longer employed there? Ever notice that whoever the current President is tends to listen to those people, because they have experience? Ever notice that people who are highly regarded in a field tend to get people who are still in that field to listen to them, even if they retired?
Think, McFly. Think.
i am a soviet space shuttle
I just burn my wonderful iTMS music to a CD and rip it to DRM-free MP3 using Apple's insanely great iTunes application, which uses Franhaufer's fantastic MP3 encoder. I'm also a moron.
[/mac fanboi mode]
The SAME thing happened to Napster.
Judge Merylin Patel (I'm sure I misspelled that, apologies) said the SAME thing about the RIAA overstepping their boundry's with John/Jane Doe lawsuits and the like.
This was after the case was done and over with, and Napster went "TWO POINT OH! (more like two old crap)"
I really wish I could find that article.
I'm sure part of the problem is that my spelling is atrocious.
She clearly does not think it is wrong or she would of done something about it.
From the Article "I certainly participated in multiple planning and debate sessions about them."
So she obviously had some say. Just because she left before they started the actual lawsuits doesn't mean that they were not her idea.
Also FTA "There were good arguments on both sides". What a stuck up hypocrite. What good arguments are there for going ahead and suing a dead lady who even when alive didnt own a computer?
ok, fess up, how many of you have enjoyed songs on the radio with no intention of going out to see the band play live? how many of you have changed channels or gone to the kitchen during a commercial? that's not just stealing, it's Raping and Pillaging! the only way we can stop you is for the police to wiretap *everyone* just to see what the hell they're doing. chances are they would catch a lot more people doing bad things that way. in fact, why don't we install webcams in everyone's room so the police can keep an eye on you? if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with that.
and hey, let's change the law so that non-commercial personal music copying changes from something that the music industry can sue you for monetary damages for, into a property crime! i bet the threat of jail time and a criminal record would really help cut down on this raping and pillaging! in california, people have received life sentences for stealing a pizza slice, since it was their third conviction for property crimes. three MP3's and you're out!
i say, let's use any means necessary to stop this heinous activity of "failure to support small bands" that is destroying the fabric of our society.
because you know, even though 90% of the songs people listen to on the radio or download are crap that they listen to just once or twice and would never in a million years listen to if it wasn't free, they should be forced to pay the full retail price for each and every song they ever hear. even if it's at a party or a bar, or if someone else has already paid for it, and sometimes they should pay again even if they've already paid for it themselves. because otherwise the music industry, which rakes in 99% of the cash and gives only 1% or so to the small bands, might go out of business. and *then* who would support the small bands?
i mean, obviously no small band can afford the kind of high-quality 24-track recording equipment it takes to produce the music these days, nor can they afford the high costs of advertising, manufacturing, and distribution. they *need* the music industry. it's been this way for decades, and nothing has changed. multi-GHz PCs with software studios, cheap broadcast-quality video equipment, websites for promotion and distribution - that's all just a flash in the pan. when are people going to realize that musicians are just too stupid to do things on their own? the music industry as it is, is here to stay, and people need to realize that there's no alternative. anyone who doesn't like that is stealing music.
and also, people just don't really care very much about the musicians that make the music they love. i mean, if you have some music that you listen to over and over, and you just love it to death, what are the chances you're going to go to the band's website and participate in some stupid scheme whereby you pay a dollar or so, that goes 100% to the band, and maybe you get an autograph or a bonus track, or a password to a VIP area of the site, or even just a good feeling? nah. it'll never happen. without the music industry to sue the fans, plus virus-like DRM schemes that take over your computer, and now police involvement and wiretapping, home taping will kill music. home taping has been killing music for decades, and it always will.
Wow, nice strawman there sparky. Do you have any idea of the terms she left on? Do you have any idea whether they were amicable or not? Do you think that if Bill Clinton called up George W. Bush and suggested he stopped treating the Constitution as if it didn't exist, do you think he'd listen? Do you think the current head of the RIAA really wouldn't mind if the former head called them up and told them they were doing something wrong? Some people retain influence in an organization after they leave. Some don't. Your assertion that they always keep influence is wrong.
Let's assume for a moment that your software is actually good enough and easy enough to use that it is possible for someone to read some online guide instead of paying you. Let's also assume you write some piece of software that you charge people $100 for and this is useful to others besides the one or two people that convinced you to write it in the first place.
There are two possible situations here. One is that you charge 100,000 people $10 each for this software after noticing that it actually is useful to others. You have a reasonably good income stream just from the interest on the money and are assured that you will never have to really work again in your life.
The other situation is that someone "copies" your software from you, gives to their close personal friends, who in turn give it to their close personal friends. You start getting a lot of email from people. Some just want to thank you for your contribution to society. Others, actually most of them, ask questions that because you are basically a decent person you try to answer. You end up spending a lot of time answering this email until it becomes overwhelming. Yes, you have 100,000 people using your software and taking up your time. But all you get is a nice reputation among 18-24 year old students that would really like to give you $10, if they had a spare $10 to give you. And asked really nicely in person.
This is the fundamental decision that we are looking at here. Which life would you like?
s/former/latter in my first paragraph.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Simple, play it in iTunes while using a wave recorder.
Nearly all the CDs I've bought have been a *direct* result of having previously downloaded a bunch of MP3s. MP3s serve the exact same function as radio, in that I can thereby hear new stuff, over and over if I want, and figure out which ones I like well enough to want to own in hardcopy.
The last 3 CDs I bought, I got directly from the artist, who had given a bunch of MP3s to the public. Same for the next two CDs that I plan to buy. I'd never have heard of ANY of these bands without their "free samples". And without the ability to replay the MP3s whenever the hell I want (ie. absolutely no DRM), I'd not have become sufficiently addicted to spend money, either.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The CEO isn't a dictator - decisions are commonly made in companies that the CEO doesn't necessarily agree with, but that carry the support of other executives. But it's pretty craven to let a plan go forward, then quit and say that you really had nothing to do with it because you were going to quit anyway.
Yet, the #1 advice you get on Slashdot when stuck in a company you don't like, is to quit.
Double-standards go both ways..
First, understand that the goal here was not to stomp out piracy, it was to (1) supress new technologies, and (2) provide a cover for frivolous lawsuits against independant artists.
So the final solution to the RIAA / MPAA / BSA is to execute everyone who ever worked for the RIAA / MPAA / BSA, or one of their member companies.
Lock & Load!
Andy Out!