Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits 287
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.'"
Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2, Informative)
Could you imagine a defense lawyer saying in his opening argument "my client is guilty"?
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2, Funny)
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.
The most liberal DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The most liberal DRM... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Everyone will be limited by Apple's DRM - timebomb (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2)
Parent poster's telling an uncomfortable truth; he's not trolling.
Let's have enough intellectual honesty to distinguish the two.
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2)
Except that I can't play Apple's DRM'ed songs, as I have an MP3 player.
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:3, Informative)
The original 128 kbps AAC is far from optimal to start. It's adequate for casual use, but still clearly inferior to a CD on anything but $20 computer speakers. Transcode, and you'll lose a lot. How sensitive you are to the loss is a personal thing.
I've done the transcoding with WMAs to MP3s. I find that keeping the MP3
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2)
(not all CD/DVD drives support CD-text. Not all CD rippers support CD-text.)
Also, call back when this inconvenience can be eliminated.
yes, it's a pain in the ass, even though it takes just a few minutes. You either have to waste a CD-R when all you wanted was to move the itunes-centric file to a more portable format, or you need to use up one of the limited rewrites of a CD-RW (or fool around with ISO9660 drivers and image files for a while to "fake"
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:2)
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
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:3, Funny)
We slashdotters are no different. We're fanatical about being anti-fanatical :)
Slashdotters not fanatical? You must be new here...
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Relevant Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, fess up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Okay, fess up (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Hilary Rosen have a "spiritual awakening"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Did Hilary Rosen have a "spiritual awakening"? (Score:2)
Re:Did Hilary Rosen have a "spiritual awakening"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Her master's voice? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Her master's voice? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Her master's voice? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Her master's voice? (Score:2)
If it's wrong for the company, it's wrong for the company. If it's right for the company, it remains right after you retire.
Plus, it is very non-professional to backtrack on your prvious decision the second your foot touches the outside word.
Shachar
We've seen this cycle before... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:We've seen this cycle before... (Score:2)
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
Re:We've seen this cycle before... (Score:2)
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
Re:We've seen this cycle before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Downloading music on the other hand is a different story. EVERYONE wants music, a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We've seen this cycle before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We've seen this cycle before... (Score:2)
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
Re:We've seen this cycle before... (Score:2)
She 'now' believes... (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:She 'now' believes... (Score:2)
Re:She 'now' believes... (Score:2)
I do believe that Nobel is remembered for his Prizes, rather than his dynamite.
Re:She 'now' believes... (Score:2)
the DRM statement (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
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
Re:the DRM statement (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
Re:the DRM statement (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:the DRM statement (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
(Pragmatically I don't particularlly care that much about cheap DRM pop music -- I was just trying to elucidate the RIAA's take on it. But seeing you mac-idiots continually goatseing yourself for Apple is too much to bear.)
Re:the DRM statement (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
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
Re:the DRM statement (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
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
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
Re:the DRM statement (Score:2)
"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.
Motive.. (Score:2)
"A pain"? (Score:5, Informative)
Note to submitters: Don't invent quotes out of thin air, especially when you encase them in quote marks, for Chrissake.
Re:"A pain"? (Score:2)
You have been warned, it is only safe for me to comment, and play the game
Please... (Score:5, Funny)
We must destroy the village to save it (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Is this really the same thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Algerath
RIAA and the like are destructive of my creativity (Score:2, Flamebait)
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:RIAA and the like are destructive of my creativ (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:2)
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
You got it all wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You got it all wrong (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, you're aiding and abetting them getting scr (Score:3, Insightful)
People like you cannot accept the fact that intellectual property doesn't come out of thin air. If
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:2)
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
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:2)
Yeah, musicians need charity too.
Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure the recording industry would love that. But why should those of us who don't rip content illegally pay up lots of money to subsidise those of you who do?
Her Role (Score:5, Insightful)
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-
Re:Her Role (Score:2)
Re:Her Role (Score:2)
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.
Lawyers have such *flexible* morals! (Score:2)
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.
Whore (Score:2)
Please note... (Score:2)
Thanks Hilary, but no thanks.......... (Score:2)
<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.
Get a life Hilary (Score:2)
divining the difference (Score:2)
Sounds like it could be sour grapes. Just a thought.
PREVIOUS being key (Score:2)
This only proves... (Score:5, Funny)
Look, this woman has escaped and now the effects of their brainwashing are starting to wear off.
So what office is she running for? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Of course she doesnt like Apple DRM (Score:2)
So let me guess (Score:2)
She's still up against the wall fodder. Neumberg style.
Re:Dear Hilary (Score:2)
Re:Dear Hilary (Score:5, Interesting)
A bunch of
Re:Dear Hilary (Score:3, Funny)
Au contraire, my friend. A bunch of
Re:Dear Hilary (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Dear Hilary (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Dear Hilary (Score:3, Insightful)
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 long