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.
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
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......
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?"
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
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.
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.
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......
No. The slashdot hive mind shall now regard Hillary Rosen is good. Get your doublethink straight.
Hillary Rosen is good, therefore she has always been good. She is our ally, and always has been our ally.
Seriously though - it is great to see that she admits it. One thing I would like to criticize is her implying that sharing on P2P networks is not legitimate. The legitimacy of P2P networks and the file sharing is not in question in the slightest, really. What is in question is how the people use it. If you download music and burn it to a music CD-R, the RIAA gets their royalties, which is divvied up among publishers and artists based on percentage of average sales over the latest period (I don't know if it's weekly, monthly, or quarterly - I never bothered to check that). I'd say that if a user downloads a music file and burns it to audio CD-R, that copy is fully legitimate and paid for, legally. Now, whether it is ethical or moral is debatable, because download activities may actually not line up with sales averages over a certain period, or the CD-R purchase may be way out of line (in terms of time) with the time period the CDs were actually burned, so artists and publishers may actually not be getting paid what they are entitled to out of those royalties.
The fairest method is to collect states of completed downloads (not failed, partial, or aborted downloads) per royalty period - WORKING with folks like The Pirate Bay to obtain those stats - then they will know how to slice that blank media royalty pie. Hell if they did something reasonable and fair like that, I would actually support an increase in levies on the CD-AUDIO blank media. Yes, I know most slashdotters would buy the data CDs to avoid the levy, but the majority of people are convinced that you NEED the CD Audio discs in order to make music CDs from MP3 files. Even many computer-literate people - people WORKING in technology, think that you need CD-audio discs, so this could be a workable solution.
Even if folks don't buy, and are happy burning 64kbps files to CD, they're not the target market anyway. They're the type who would be just as happy with recording songs off the radio, and are the type who will be swooning over HD-Radio despite the fact that it's lower fidelity than analog FM radio. No loss for the RIAA there, because those are the folks who would not purchase it ANYHOW. Let them have their free, low-fidelity music and at least carry out viral marketing for RIAA members by word of mouth. Eventually they will tell friends who WILL want to buy the CD, or share their download with a friend who is not happy with the fidelity and changes their mind and buys the CD.
I'd also argue that downloading live bootlegs is legitimate. Many bands openly encourage trading of recordings of live performances. That is the only audio I download lately because I do not want to be exposed to new acts until the RIAA gets their collective act together.
Lastly: RIAA (AND MPAA) members need to embrace the idea of try-before-you-buy, FULLY legitimize FREE downloads of low-bitrate (say, 64kbps or so) files, and look the other way for 128kbps files (unless a site is charging for them without paying the respective parties their dues). Higher bitrates should be cracked down on, but it ought to be to be PROVEN beyond reasonable doubt that an infraction is taken place by specific, identifiable persons. That means no suing gramma who has never owned a computer other than webtv, and no suing 7-yr-olds who may have happened to download the wrong file. Also, the settlement has got to be FAIR. Like, say, Oh I don't know, the person(s) involved MUST buy the infringing works at the average retail price, or at worst, since the RIAA may be entitled to damages, triple the average retail price. NOT thousands per track, because there has been NO damage. A sale they did not make is NOT lost money; it is monies they never possessed or had right to in the first place.
There has to be a happy medium workable for all in this whole
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50