Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits 287

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the setting-the-record-straight dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gmFREEBSDail.com minus bsd> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:44AM (#15509219) Journal
    Former RIAA head Hilary Rosen now believes that the RIAA is wrong by pursuing their lawsuits of individuals for using P2P programs.
    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? Now for your entertainment, you can not only hear it from United States Generals [nytimes.com] but also former RIAA employees!
    • Yes, I think Hillary may have noticed that too:
      In any event, it is easy to sit back and just comment. And it is usually pretty easy to listen to those comments.
    • Often it is your job description and duty to be an advocate for your client/employer.

      Could you imagine a defense lawyer saying in his opening argument "my client is guilty"?
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Defense attorneys are legally obligated to provide a zealous defense for their client. Just the same they cannot suborn perjury. The whole purpose is to create an environment wherein the State must prove compellingly that a suspsect has in fact committed a crime.

        As the head of the RIAA you have no real justification besides a profit-motive for engaging in dishonest behavior. You might be expected to provide a zealous position for your industry, but you have no compelling moral reason to engage in unethical
    • I think Rosen's position is interesting considering that even Slashdot back in 2000 was very adamant that the RIAA should go after infringers (mostly because everyone thought it couldn't be done, so it was a safe position to take).

      As for Apple's DRM being "a pain," I don't know how she could possibly think that. I've never even hit a limitation with it, and I forget it's there. It's the most liberal DRM in existence.
      • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:24PM (#15509664) Homepage
        Would you like me to put you in the Loosest Set of Handcuffs ever invented? $18.95 today only.
      • by Blimey85 (609949) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:30PM (#15509689)
        DRM no matter who it's from is still DRM. Just because you haven't hit a limit with Apple's DRM doesn't mean that other users haven't. IMHO there is absolutely no way to effectively stop pirating. Maybe if we started beheading people for pirating we might be able to slow things down but I'm not certain that even something that drastic would have much effect.

        We all have this "I'll never get caught" attitude and so no matter what happens to the next guy, we feel immune. Lots of people got sued by the RIAA but I never had a problem finding any song I was looking for. Soulseek still worked as well as ever. Their threats and subsequent action in the form of lawsuits did nothing to deter me nor millions of other people from pirating songs, movies, whatever.

        So what good does DRM, threats, lawsuits, or any of the other tactics that have been used, what good does any of it do? It doesn't stop piracy. It doesn't even seem to slow it down. Torrent sites get taken down and new ones pop up. Software such as Napster gets shut down and other software comes along to fill the void. The train keeps on rolling. The people who get hurt are the ones who our buying the material legally or who have bought hardware that has restrictions. My Sony network music player (can't really call it an mp3 player since it's primary use is to play atrac files) allows me to transfer whatever I want to the player, but I can't move the songs back off the player to my computer. I had a Creativer player previously that allowed me to move everything both ways and it was a lot less hassle. Sure Sony's format takes up a lot less space and I like the fact that it's offered but I'd also like to be able to convert back to mp3 if I want to move the songs off the device. Especially songs that I've kept in the mp3 format. These limits haven't stopped me from pirating music, they've just frustrated me and made me consider devices from other companies that don't have the same limitations.

        The media companies need to realize that there is a way to make more profit but it's not by forcing limitations on us. Make things easier and more available through legit channels and more and more people will abandon piracy. Give us downloads that we can use however we want for a very small fee and people will flock to that. Give us tv shows without commericals for $.99 each that are avail the same day as the episode airs on tv and let us subscribe to the shows we want to see. I'd pay good money for that service. As it is I download my shows the day after they air and I never see any commercials plus I get the widescreen versions even though I don't have an hdtv. The downloaded episodes look better on my tv than what I can get from using my dvr. I'm not going to watch the commericals either way but I am willing to pay for a high quality, fast downloading, widescreen version of my favorite shows as long as it's better than what I'm doing now. Give it to me sooner, faster, and for only maybe $.99 and you'll rake in the dough.

        • 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.
      • I think Rosen's position is interesting considering that even Slashdot back in 2000 was very adamant that the RIAA should go after infringers (mostly because everyone thought it couldn't be done, so it was a safe position to take).


        Parent poster's telling an uncomfortable truth; he's not trolling.

        Let's have enough intellectual honesty to distinguish the two.
      • As for Apple's DRM being "a pain," I don't know how she could possibly think that. I've never even hit a limitation with it, and I forget it's there. It's the most liberal DRM in existence.

        Except that I can't play Apple's DRM'ed songs, as I have an MP3 player.

    • Fanatics, tunnel vision, extremists, or whatever you want to call them have a slight ounce of truth to their cause, but pounds, if not tons, of dead weight associated with them as well.

      We slashdotters are no different. We're fanatical about being anti-fanatical :)

      I guess the happy medium is just to eat, sleep, and shit, just like every other animal. The problem, is that we humans need to find purpose for our eating, sleeping, and shitting while we are on the planet. The problem is self-centeredness, vani
    • by jambarama (784670) <jambarama@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:35PM (#15509707) Homepage Journal
      This is a no brainer. Obvious to anyone but the current president of the RIAA. She did blog on Lawrence Lessigs site a while back [lessig.org] and I think some posters made some intelligent responses to her points.

      The same thing happened with Jack Valenti after he stepped down. All of a sudden he grew a brain and realized that some of the practices/technologies the MPAA developed/pushed while he was president weren't good for customers. Surprise surprise!

      I think what has happened is that now they are just normal consumers and the realize what a pain in the rear the stuff they pushed is to real people.
      • by Chuqmystr (126045) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @04:26PM (#15510298) Homepage
        I can't help but wonder if these two clowns are trying to "align themselves" to the "new ways of distributing entertainment media". In other words are they scrounging around for new jobs with dollar signs in their eyes, visions of leading some yet to be formed companies into the brave new world of selling entertainment on the internet? Just a thought...
    • Relevant Quote (Score:3, Interesting)

      by philipkd (528838)
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
  • by Foerstner (931398) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:44AM (#15509220)
    ...which one of you hacked Hillary Rosen's blog...?
  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Achra (846023) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:45AM (#15509226) Journal
    That's all well and good, but I want to hear about how the Current head of the RIAA believes these things.
  • by BroncoInCalifornia (605476) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:46AM (#15509234)
    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.
    • Why? Anyone see that the RIAA is on the wrong course. In fact, the only people who CAN'T see that are those with business degrees.
    • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @03:16PM (#15510078) Journal
      But you have to give her credit for seeing that the RIAA was/is on a bad course.
      No I don't. You have to be blind not to see that the RIAA is on a bad course, and she knew it all along. Now she's having an epiphany? I don't think so. It doesn't take any guts to say what she says, now that she got her money. If what she says now is to have any meaning, then she should repay all the money lost by the people that she trashed. What she is saying is the same as a politician taking "responsibilty" for their mistakes after they get caught in some despicable act or their negligence. Empty words knowing full well that they will suffer no consequences. Color me unimpressed.
  • by Sun (104778) <shachar@shemesh.biz> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:46AM (#15509235) Homepage
    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
    • by Soko (17987)
      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?

      That's pretty much a CEOs JOB, friend, to further the interests of the people investing in thier company no matter what. Google and Canonical are exceptions, where having a social concience is not considered a liability. Usually the question "Am I d
    • by kimvette (919543) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @04:17PM (#15510275) Homepage Journal
      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
  • by davecb (6526) * <davec-b@rogers.com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:47AM (#15509239) Homepage Journal
    I'm in the middle of trying to post the following to the Huffington Post, but it seems not to be able to see this particular Hilary Rosen posting... we may have a link to a very new article.

    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

    • These statistics only matter, however, because of the ease of cracking this generation of DRM combined with relatively lax laws (or rather, enforcement of said laws) on the subject. Toss in a lack of a broadcast flag and watermark-respecting content creators, and you're in for a world of copies, no matter what.

      This is why the cartels are turning towards buying laws from the US (and other) Government. It's otherwise going to be impossible to get the right combination of laws and technology in play to make
    • 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.

      You're obviously not a musician. A large percentage of professional music programs still require the use of a USB dongle. If you're lucky, it actually works...if you're unlucky (like me), you have to unplug/re-plug the dongle every time you restart your computer...then you complain to Steinberg, but it has absolutely no
    • Not to support the RIAA which I don't, but I really do have a hard time believing that. If its a niched program you have a specific audience. Photoshop being a great example, not everyone wants it. There is a specific crowd who are looking for it and will pirate it for personal use (probably pretty computer literate people). Assuming they take a hobby professional they will most likly have to get a legal copy for a business.

      Downloading music on the other hand is a different story. EVERYONE wants music, a
    • Goddamn do I hate dongles. I do all my data capture/analysis in a single program. It has great integration with matlab so I can do a lot of heavy scripting and automate the most boring tasks. Start the experiment, hit "collect", and go get a cup of coffee. Innovation at its finest.

      However, the goddamn software requires a dongle. A parallel port dongle. That means it's damn near impossible to run the software under parallels on my macbook, and actually work on my scripts while I'm out of the office. Y
      • The question, therefore, is whether you'd buy it again. If you buy it once and deal with the copy protection, it's because you had to. If you buy it again knowing you'll have to put up with that same copy protection, it shows that it doesn't bother you. Clearly it does. That alone is half the reason that I use FOSS whenever possible - no keys and no hoops (free is really just a bonus). I bought music once from iTunes, and will not do so again until JHYMN works again or it's unprotected downloads (as so
  • by tetrode (32267) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:47AM (#15509240) Homepage
    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
    • Actually, her real point wasn't that she is against these individual lawsuits; she specifically says that she was part of the decision-making process, and that there were good points on "both" sides of the issue, but that the suits didn't start after she left. Whether that's weasel-words or not is something we can talk about, but nope, she isn't saying suing is a bad idea, but that they didn't sue while she was in charge. And that point about the iPod in the blurb... well, it's a non-issue completely; all s
    • "Sorry, Hillary - once you're on the wrong side of the hallway, you will allways stay there. Whatever you do."

      I do believe that Nobel is remembered for his Prizes, rather than his dynamite.
  • 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.
    • I don't get why she's complaining about Apple's DRM specifically. It's one of the least-annoying there is. Apple probably didn't want to add it at all but only did it grudgingly, and will drop it if it ever can, but if you're going to complain about DRM -- why not complain about the nasty stuff that really does get in the way?

      What a crock. She says that something she did is wrong but isn't actually doing anything to make amends, like returning peoples' money, that I can see, and she whines about the thing l
      • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:12PM (#15509338)
        > 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.
        • Heh. We'll see about that. The Creative Nomad plays stuff from allofmp3.com just fine. So does the iPod.
        • by Have Blue (616) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:17PM (#15509630) Homepage
          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?
          • 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.
      • by shaitand (626655) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:14PM (#15509342) Journal
        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.
        • Oh please. If Steve Jobs woke up tomorrow and singlehandedly convinced Hu Jintao to institute thorough democratic reforms across China, you'd argue he was just ensuring the stability of a future Mac marketplace. Even if Apple's board decided to liquidate itself immediately thereafter, you'd call that a press gambit.

          Fact is, there's precious few companies in the industry that take as long-term a view as Apple towards improving our lives by making technology accessible, and in this case, by standing up to the
        • by telbij (465356) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:27PM (#15509679)
          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.
        • Apple is one of the most vile anti-consumer monster corporations out there

          No:

          If Apple fought more restrictive DRM it was because they thought it would hurt their bottom line

          because Apple listens to their consumers well. It knows what its fans want and it gives it to them. It keeps us happy. And so we think that Apple is on the side of consumers, when in reality, they're just trying to lure profits away from competitors that don't listen quite as well.

          But for all we care, we can pull Occam's Razor and say it
      • Actually, no, she doesn't say that anything she did was wrong. She says that she's not responsible for the lawsuits because they were done after she resigned. Whether that's true or not, she can't "actually [do] anything to make amends" because she's no longer the RIAA chair, so she has no authority to do so.
      • Compare the following:

        "Apple's DRM is one of the least annoying there is."

        "Horse shit tastes much better than cow shit."

        At the end of the day, however much nicer horse shit might be, it's still shit.
  • 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?
  • "A pain"? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pink Tinkletini (978889) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:51AM (#15509263) Homepage
    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.
    • All my systems are compromised, however god, satan and my followers have the power to exploit me to protect me. I still have access to the internet3 and as long as those who would exploit me remember to take precaution, knowing i am exploited they will be able to take proactive measure against the factions exploiting me, so long as it is in the interest of creating a good game, and to prevent a win game scenario.

      You have been warned, it is only safe for me to comment, and play the game :)
  • Please... (Score:5, Funny)

    by l3prador (700532) <wkankla@gmaTOKYOil.com minus city> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:53AM (#15509275) Homepage
    Futhermore, she adds, "You guys are right, ok? So will someone please be my friend?"
  • by rfc1394 (155777) <Paul@paul-robinson.us> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:56AM (#15509286) Homepage Journal
    Now that the RIAA has filed all these lawsuits and ruined a lot of people's lives, including actions which, in some cases, were filed against innocent people, the former head of the RIAA decides that it was a bad idea. Thanks a lot. Why do I suspect that if she were still head of the RIAA she would not be making this comment and would still be insisting on having the RIAA going after anyone they could find?

    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 [wikipedia.org], or when the Jews forgive Hitler."

    • by algerath (955721) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:30PM (#15509402)
      I am not saying I agree with the RIAA business practices, they are pretty shitty. Are shitty business tactics in the same ballpark as "hanoi Jane" or Hitler? I might even classify the RIAA as evil, but as far as I know they have not committed acts bordering on treason nor have they committed genocide. Let's keep some perspective here Hitler, WOW

      Algerath

  • 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.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:02PM (#15509309) Homepage
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Re: "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?"

      Never.

      Treating content as the loss leader that it is since it became digital and easily Internet-distributable is a no-brainer. Of course I treat content as the easily copyable, fungible item that it is.

      But the concert experience is not duplicable or digitable, and never will be. And of course, like millions, I attend concerts and when I'm there I spend money on
    • 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.

      It would probably also be effective to cut off campus networks entirely from the Internet, or for that matter to impose random searches of any computer on the network, with the the owner of any machine containing any infringing content immediately being kicked out of college.

      Of course, whether it's even slightly ethical or legal to

    • by Baby Duck (176251)
      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 al
      • I do agree that it isn't stealing, but I'd have to alter your example slightly:

        Copying is not stealing. If I touched your sofa, which you were trying to sell at a garage sale, produced an exact copy, and walked off with the copy, guess what? You still have the original.

        Yes, I still have my sofa, and you have your exact replica - but I might be a bit miffed because of the lost sale opportunity. However, if you made a copy of my sofa in order to take it home and see how it fit in your living room - t
      • 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
        • 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
    • OK, I'll fess up... I have lots of MP3s. Music is very important to me.

      Most of the MP3s I have, I have encoded myself from CDs borrowed from friends.
      I have occasionally downloaded as well, without any qualms whatsoever, because:
      I have bought a lot more CDs after discovering the wonder that is mp3, and electronic distribution in general. I've bought the whole back catalogue of several small bands to support the band, also because its a lot nicer to have the CD and inlay in my rack than to have an entry in a
    • 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'll confess. I've downloaded a lot of music, and discovered that the bands were shitty, and then didn't go to see them live, or waste 17$ on a CD that they made. Try before you buy, you know?

      I quit going to fi

    • Good in theory, but if a college student is downloading gigs of mp3s, then they are not a fan of any one small band enough to go out and buy any CDs (they won't download the latest single from iTunes either due to DRM being a pain). If file sharing was heavily prosecuted then they'd listen to the radio.

      I think if FM radio didn't SUCK now, then a lot of college students would turn to that to get their random music fix instead of bit torrent / emule.
  • Her Role (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HardCase (14757) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:15PM (#15509347)
    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-
    • This whole role thing reminded me to "The Corporation" and Chomsky's description about the corporation as an institution: you can be the nicest person ever, but in your corporate role you can be the equivalent of a gas chamber attendent. What's more scary, that ordinarily nice person can see nothing wrong with it.
    • No disrespect intended HC, but I feel the need to share a definition:

      From [reference.com]: constituency (1a.) The body of voters or the residents of a district represented by an elected legislator or official. (2a.) A group of supporters or patrons.

      Consider the definition, then re-read the quote. Ironic? Don't get me started.

  • 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.
  • Who's paying her to say that total opposite position, now that the RIAA isn't paying her to say the stupid original?
  • 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?
  • 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
  • former

    Sounds like it could be sour grapes. Just a thought.

  • 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!
  • by SeaFox (739806) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:55PM (#15509501)
    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.

  • by HiThere (15173) * <charleshixsn&earthlink,net> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:25PM (#15509671)
    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.

  • Simply (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kyoko21 (198413)
    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.
  • SHE WAS ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS?

    She's still up against the wall fodder. Neumberg style.

It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...