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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
> It's one of the least-annoying there is.
This is astroturfing and unsubstantiated FUD.
> Apple probably didn't want to add it at all but only did it grudgingly,
More astroturfing or possibly groteseque stupidity -- Proprietary DRM is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business
> I don't get why she's complaining about Apple's DRM specifically.
Because it has 90% of the market. Initally, the RIAA probably thought non-interoperable DRM was a great idea because Apple, Real, and Microsoft would split the market, and people would end up re-purchasing music depending on device compatibility.
However at this point, Apple is so dominate, the market for online music can never really grow larger than Apple wants it to be. There's whole categories of digital music devices that are not feasible right now because of the lack of iTMS compatibility. So while Apple grew the market from nothing, now that it's established. they are really the limiting factor to the total size of the market and how the songs are priced and marketed.
Or at least that's how the RIAA would see it -- and they're not always exactly objective. But still, if there were to do it over again, they would be industry-wide standards for DRM.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Here we go, we should have known the apple apologizers would come out. Look, Apple is one of the most vile anti-consumer monster corporations out there. Learn to the live with that. Apple gives not one flying fluck about its 'loyal fans' but it knows a buck when it sees one. If Apple fought more restrictive DRM it was because they thought it would hurt their bottom line not for the sake of their customers.
As for which DRM to attack, it makes the most sense to complain about the least obtrusive DRM you can find. That way things start off on the basis that, that minimal DRM is too much. Otherwise that minimal DRM would become the best compromise we could hope for.
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-
Algerath
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
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.
This is astroturfing and unsubstantiated FUD.
What stores have less annoying DRM? There are stores with zero DRM, but see point 2 for why that's not feasible for Apple.
Proprietary DRM is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business
No, RIAA music is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business. DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation. Do you think the music store would have been a fraction as successful as it was if it was stocked with unknown independents?
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.
Look, Apple is one of the most vile anti-consumer monster corporations out there. Learn to the live with that. Apple gives not one flying fluck about its 'loyal fans' but it knows a buck when it sees one. If Apple fought more restrictive DRM it was because they thought it would hurt their bottom line not for the sake of their customers.
Welcome to America buddy. Why should anyone think that Apple would be different than any other company? By this standard all corporations are vile anti-consumer monsters. Why the double standard? The only distinguishing aspect of Apple for me is that they make products I like (not in the 90s, but I really dig Mac OS X).
If there's something that I think makes a company 'viley-anti-consumer' it would have to be lobbying for laws to protect monopolies or other business practices that harm the public. The most vile corporations in my mind are the ones that exploit natural resources and create huge amounts of pollution, thus making profits at the expense of things that should belong to all of us. I find it hard to demonize a company for simply creating and marketing a product that I don't like for some reason.
What stores have less annoying DRM?
It's not my job to substantiate FUD he pulled out of his ass. The truth is probably that they are all about equally annoying because they are all under the same RIAA licensing program.
DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation.
Oh, I guess that explains why Apple doesn't licence their DRM to third parties. No wait, it doesn't because you're just here to appleturf, and you actually have zero understanding and insight into Apple's business model.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Simply put, she is now feeling the pain when the shoe is on the other foot.
What?
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.
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.
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.