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.'"

Comments

RIAA and the like are destructive of my creativity

[Quiberon]

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.

Re:Have You Ever Noticed?

[Goaway]

Have you ever noticed that it's easier to assume the higher moral ground when your job is no longer riding on your views & political statements?

No, I had actually never noticed that before! Thank you, Mr. +1 Insightful, for pointing this out to me! The wool has literally been lifted from my eyes!

Re:the DRM statement

[falcon5768]

Its well know they wont because they are selling iPods, but dont play dumb to the fact that they make it insanely easy to remove the DRM and have never patched the holes to that.

All Apple really does is say "hey these tracks will only play on a iPod as is, but if you have even 10% of a brain you will know to burn a CD rerip it and tada music for your nomad."

Yes they are selling iPods, but only idiots and morons who shouldnt touch a computer think that Apple is trying to FORCE you to buy a iPod, not when someone with a shred of techno savy knows how to bypass it.

Re:The most liberal DRM...

[Overly Critical Guy]

What a flawed argument! I just explained how Apple's DRM wasn't like handcuffs at all, and how you don't come across any restrictions in normal use.

You kind of have to prove that they're as restrictive as handcuffs first for your remark to be valid. You guys are just anti-DRM because Slashdot runs constant headlines telling you to think that way, so you take an absolutist viewpoint that any and all copy protection is 100% wrong. Absolutist mindsets are the real handcuffs in this debate.