Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the setting-the-record-straight dept.

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.'"

cancel ×

287 comments

Have You Ever Noticed? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509219)

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!

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (3, Funny)

hende_jman (747347) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509244)

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.

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (2, Informative)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509310)

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"?

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509422)

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 behavior to do so. You can expect little sympathy when even the special case you cited already obtains little sympathy when it engages in hysterics, and then people's actual lives are on the line.

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509411)

How about BJ Clinton who militarized the war on marijuana and brought arrest from around 300,000 a year to the 700,000 range its been since he was in power.

What was the first thing he did when he retired?
Told Rolling Stone that the laws on pot are wrong.

Im sure the medical marijuana patients who are still alive and who were rousted by federal agents feel better than this a--hole said he was wrong. Now if he can admit that he helped Al QUaeda in the Balkans when tens of thousands of them were ramaging through the region (but were told by the Clintonistas that they were 'nice' muslims) adn helped them get TWO footholds in europe were many of the 911 organizers stayed after they conquered new lands; then we might get to see him face a fire squad on the white house lawn.

Saying you are sorry or made a mistake does NOT make you less guilty of a crime in the eyes of the law: why should we give these people a break?

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (2, Funny)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509577)

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.

The most liberal DRM... (5, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509664)

Would you like me to put you in the Loosest Set of Handcuffs ever invented? $18.95 today only.

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (5, Insightful)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509597)


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, vanity, narcissism, etc.

No, we humans are not that special. No, God did not create us in his own image. We are merely highly social apes with language, opposable thumbs, tools, and no predators, and its easy for us to get food, so we are misdirected and prey on each other out of boredom.

Re:Have You Ever Noticed? (3, Funny)

PastaLover (704500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509662)

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? (4, Insightful)

jambarama (784670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509707)

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.

Okay, fess up (5, Funny)

Foerstner (931398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509220)

...which one of you hacked Hillary Rosen's blog...?

Re:Okay, fess up (1)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509476)

Police raid in Rosen's house in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Okay, fess up (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509560)

we can only hope that that was the case :) and not simply that hillary became aware of the truth when she had access to the system. If hillary admits her blog was hacked then we know the seal is intact :)

Hmm (4, Insightful)

Achra (846023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509226)

That's all well and good, but I want to hear about how the Current head of the RIAA believes these things.

Re:Hmm (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509485)

You'll have to wait until he retires. He is an attorney. His job is to promote what his client believes.

You want your defense attorney should look at a jury and say,"Well, in my opinion he should swing".?

Feel free, however, to take the role of the prosecution and point out that the beliefs he is promoting just make him look like an asshole. Ms. Rosen's comments may be used as evidence.

KFG

Dear Hilary (-1, Troll)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509227)

I think I speak for all of us here at Slashdot when I say "STFU and go to hell (preferably one with lots of DRM)"

Best regards,

Us

Re:Dear Hilary (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509237)

Would hell be considered "vendor lock-in"?

Re:Dear Hilary (5, Interesting)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509265)

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."
A bunch of /.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.

Re:Dear Hilary (2, Funny)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509494)


  Au contraire, my friend. A bunch of /.er's have much more sway to the political tide than Hillary Rosen. All they have to do is vote. (Oh, and get into the Diebold machines)

Re:Dear Hilary (3, Interesting)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509273)

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.

Re:Dear Hilary (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509289)

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?

Re:Dear Hilary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509454)

La La La La!

I'M NOT LISTENING!

Linux is great! Open Source is great! Rosen is Bad!

La La La La!

Re:Dear Hilary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509363)

If you actually talked to her you would probably find out that she had agreed to law suits in the begining because she wanted to make examples of some of the worst offenders; after the initial run of law suits they had no longer served any purpose because they would no loger get any press and they would not scare people from downloading music any more.

Now, DRM is mostly usless and has a negative impact on legitimate users while it has no impact on illegal copies of music/movies/etc; this is because no matter how strong your copy protection is on passive media formats someone will eventually break the protection (potentially at a quality cost, ie. camera footage of a movie screen) and the unauthorized copies will be free of all DRM.

Now, both of these problems have continued in spite of anything she could have any control over; companies like Apple and Microsoft have been completely willing to develop the DRM and convince content providers to use it, and Record Companies have been looking for blood because of poorer than expected sales (honesly, if I was them, I'd look at the crappy artists that they sign). Her position was to make the Record companies happy, so the lawsuits continued regardless of whether they served any further benefit; and the DRM continued to be developed because she had no control over it.

Re:Dear Hilary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509580)

Amen brother. Mod parent up.

Did Hilary Rosen have a "spiritual awakening"? (4, Interesting)

BroncoInCalifornia (605476) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Did Hilary Rosen have a "spiritual awakening"? (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509590)

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.

Her master's voice? (2, Insightful)

Sun (104778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509235)

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

Re:Her master's voice? (2, Interesting)

Soko (17987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509531)

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 doing he right thing" is followed by "for the company". It depends on whether your self worth is tied to being a good CEO, or being a good regular standard issue human.

I got out of management when I realised that I would have to someday fire people who were no longer useful to the comapany. Having to tear apart one persons life so the rest would have a stronger company to work for scared the hell out of me - I doubt I'd of had the stomach for it. I'd therefore make a poor CEO, in the eyes of investors, anyway.

Soko

Re:Her master's voice? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509660)

. . .does that mean that Rosen, like any other CEO, will do whatever they think their current employer needs, regardless of personal opinion about it?

Isn't that what you expect people you pay to represent to do? Isn't it, in fact, professionally ethical for them to do so?

If their opinion is strong enough they can always leave and then speak their mind, which is, as it happens, what Ms. Rosen did, no?

KFG

We've seen this cycle before... (5, Insightful)

davecb (6526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509239)

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

Re:We've seen this cycle before... (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509455)

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 DRM a success.

And for the record, this only bothers me because it restricts my fair use rights. If there was a perfect way to ensure that I could make backups of all my copyrighted content while ensuring that no one could distribute copyrighted content they don't hold the copyright to without a license, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

This isn't to say that I'm a big fan of the cartels. I also happen to think that copyright should be brought back down to a reasonable level and that corporations shouldn't be treated like people, but those are two completely separate battles, in my opinion.

Re:We've seen this cycle before... (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509621)

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 effect.

She 'now' believes... (2, Informative)

tetrode (32267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509240)

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

Re:She 'now' believes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509308)

> They didn't dare to go after the big guys.

Wasn't Napster shut down when she was running the RIAA?

Re:She 'now' believes... (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509608)

Napster isn't the 'big guys'. GP is referring to the bootleg cartels. These groups are almost mafiaesque in their tactics, and I don't see them flinching at having to murder the head of the RIAA if he/she decided to 'crack down' on bootlegging properly.

Re:She 'now' believes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509353)

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 never intentionally sued people who only downloaded files. Nor did they sue people who uploaded one or two files. Yes, they made some mistakes. Yes, what they did was stupid. It just wasn't that stupid.

Re:She 'now' believes... (1)

The Cydonian (603441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509453)

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 she says is that she may, or may not, discuss it in detail in the future.

So yeah, really didn't read it as if she was distancing herself too much from RIAA; she's just invoking a plausible-deniability clause of sorts on those individual lawsuits.

Re:She 'now' believes... (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509681)

"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.

the DRM statement (2, Informative)

LinuxOnEveryDesktop (14145) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509242)

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.

Re:the DRM statement (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509284)

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 least worth whining over.

Bitch.

Re:the DRM statement (3, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:the DRM statement (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509625)

Heh. We'll see about that. The Creative Nomad plays stuff from allofmp3.com just fine. So does the iPod.

Re:the DRM statement (3, Insightful)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509630)

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?

Re:the DRM statement (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509342)

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.

Re:the DRM statement (2)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509567)

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 recording industry and pointing out their shortsightedness. It's a decent companies that takes this long-term view. When you engage in this holy war attacking them for "faking it," you become just one more voice tempting them to throw in the towel and join the suits who'd rather see them squeeze you dry for the sake of Q2 profits--never mind five years down the road, or five generations.

Your comment about DRM is insightful enough, but I almost didn't make it that far, hidden as it was behind your tasteless, paranoid, and wholly unfounded rant.

Here we go... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509637)

When are you people gong to wake up and realize that shaitand cares only about making a name for themselves and can't give a flying fuck about you slahsdotters? As for which platform they chose for cuisinewiki, if they fought for using a WIKI, they probably just thought about the bottom line, not for the sake of their clients. Shaitand continues to lock anyone without a computer and web broswer out of access to all those recipes - obviously one of the most vile anti-cooking organizations out there.

See, kids - isn't that easy and fun?

Re:the DRM statement (4, Insightful)

telbij (465356) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:the DRM statement (1)

elmedico27 (931070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509395)

I'd assume that the reason she mentions Apple's DRM is because it's probably the DRM most users are familiar with. Anyone who has iTunes or an iPod is probably familiar with Apple's method of copy-protecting songs. Heck, I know people who don't have iTunes, don't have an iPod, and have never bought a song from the iTunes Music Store, and they still know about Apple's DRM. But mention Windows Media Connect or URGE or any other music service, I'd bet that most people would have no idea how that copy protection works or what it does.

So her statements are merely out of convenience. Do you really expect her to name off every DRM out there? If she mentioned WMDRM, we'd have Windows Media fanboys (hey, there might be some) complaining about her choice of words. She's not specifically targeting Apple, she's using it as a familiar example of all DRM technology.

I do agree with your second part, though, she got us into this mess, she should at least extend a hand to get us out.

Re:the DRM statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509461)

They exist, but you can count them on one hand. Also, she has NO power anymore, besides a voice and a vote. The same power every other person has.

Re:the DRM statement (1)

snarlydwarf (532865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509613)

The catch is who defines "interoperable".

If I can play DRM'd music when I want, and where I want, and on the devices I want, including making my own backup copies, sure, I have no problem with it: it hasn't restricted my rights.

But we know that isn't what either RIAA or the DRM vendors would call interoperable.

Re:the DRM statement (1)

e. boaz (67350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509644)

I received the opposite opinion from her blog. Here's the quote:

"The iPod is still too small a part of the overall potential of the market and its propietary DRM just bugs me. Speaking of DRM, it is time to rethink that strategy as well."

Please note, "Speaking of DRM, it is time to rethink that strategy as well." This would seem to indicate that she now believes that DRM is an ill conceived strategy, one that she supported at one time, but has had second thoughts.

I believe this boils down to one philosophical statement I've adopted, "As a general rule, as you treat a person so they will behave." (Note: This doesn't mean I see the world through rose colored glasses.)

Re:the DRM statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509692)

I'm guessing she's all for DRM, as long as it is inter-operable.

Where interoperable is defined as Microsoft Windows Media DRM.

Microsoft is funding a number of programs directed at this goal on both the national and international level. These run under a number of amusing names, from "Freedom to Innovate Network", through "Open Mobile Alliance", to various international lobbying efforts.

These operate with a goal of 'DRM Convergence', on Microsoft's DRM, under Microsoft's terms and licenses, with Microsoft's right to approve products, and licensees forced to hold Microsoft harmless against IP violations. Look for the NAP (Non-Assertion of Patents) provision in their licenses which contains covenants not to sue or participate in any kind of proceedings against Microsoft or other licensees for infringement of the licensee's patents.

If all a company makes is MP3 players, perhaps the license terms are not too onerous. Look at a company like Apple, though. You think they want to let Microsoft off the hook for any patent or other IP violations? Think Steve wants to send any product that might play music up to Redmond for pre-approval, while promising not to trouble Microsoft if they happen to nick any interesting ideas from the product?

Motive.. (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509249)

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?

Tell them off (-1, Flamebait)

Devar (312672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509253)

I'd like to see Hilary Rosen contact the current head of the RIAA, Mitch Bainwol, and talk some sense into him. Unfortunately, he's republican, so I doubt that'd ever work. ;-)

"A pain"? (5, Informative)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509263)

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.

Re:"A pain"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509445)

Not only that, but since Apple has such dominance they can control pricing to some degree, keeping downloads at $.99 and not letting the labels charge outrageous fees. (This is similar to the control Walmart has over manufacturers, etc.)

But also, this again is a change of face. They loved iTunes when it was the only game in town and still a small fish (I know, I did some work for labels at the time). Now, as mentioned above, it stifles their ability to rape customers. Do you ever hear artists bitching about the $.99 price?

Re:"A pain"? (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509446)

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 :)

Re:"A pain"? (1)

wkcole (644783) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509470)

it's not the DRM itself that she finds annoying, but rather Apple's unwillingness to share.

Ms. Rosen is apparently unaware of what the phrase "intellectual property" means.

Re:"A pain"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509492)

The quotes are used incorrectly and only one of the two even bears resemblance to the actual article. However, you apperantly didn't read enough of the article, cause here's what she says on DRM:

"... its [iPod's] propietary DRM just bugs me. Speaking of DRM, it is time to rethink that strategy as well...".


So while she doesn't say outright that DRM is annoying, she does recognize the futility of it.

Also, I've noticed a lot of comments saying that she's only saying this now that she's no longer head of the RIAA and that she's responsible for what they're doing now. However, if you read the article, it seems that the decision to prosecute individual copyright infringers was made after her leaving.

I'd think that a summary on a topic this controversial would at least merit the reading of the article.

Queue the "this is slashdot" and "you must be new here" comments.

A pain? (0, Redundant)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509267)

Where is that quote about 'a pain' from? It's not anywhere in the linked article.

And there's always the cynical view of "Apple's DRM is a pain because with a single company dominating the market we can't play competing stores off against each other like we used to".

I see her "pain" and raise a "stupid as shit" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509270)

bECAUSE IT IS AS STUPID AS shit !! this has got to stop !!

Please... (5, Funny)

l3prador (700532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509275)

Futhermore, she adds, "You guys are right, ok? So will someone please be my friend?"

We must destroy the village to save it (2, Insightful)

rfc1394 (155777) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509286)

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."

Is this really the same thing... (4, Insightful)

algerath (955721) | more than 8 years ago | (#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

RIAA and the like are destructive of my creativity (1, Flamebait)

Quiberon (633716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509290)

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 (1)

Quiberon (633716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509306)

Oh. Best so far is here [linuxtracker.org] , or direct torrent link here [linuxtracker.org] .

My head hurts (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509295)

The spelling nazis should have a field day with that post in her blog.

Re:My head hurts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509421)

Whatever, fag. You're a bore and an asshole.

The buyers are the problem all too often (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509309)

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.

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (1)

TCK314 (969876) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509364)

"Chances are, it ain't home movies, porn or Linux ISOs they're sending." Actually...

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509368)

I'd like to see a flat $5 a month internet content tax. Divide that up between the studios and leave everyone alone.

These lawsuits only piss people off.

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509415)

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?

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509425)

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 lots of things, including oftentimes band merchandise.

So ... what was your point? Are you trying to claim that no one who likes music goes to concerts and spends money? Maybe things are different on Planet Zorton where you seem to be from, but here on Planet Earth, concerts still take place.

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509428)

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 do these things is an entirely different question. I'd like to think you were joking about the wiretapping suggest, because it's such an affront to my sense of decency that I can't imagine anyone actually supporting such a move.

You got it all wrong (2, Insightful)

Baby Duck (176251) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509474)

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.

Re:You got it all wrong (1)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509558)

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 - that would be a totally different situation all together.

That's the difference between those who download and never buy, and those who download and then buy the decent stuff. Unfortunately there isn't any good way for the record companies to differentiate between those two types currently.

What I would propose the record companies do is come up with a subscription plan - pay a certain amount per month for all the music you want, and at the end of the month you get to decide which groups that money is split between. That would keep the good bands in business and the horrid ones would die. Of course they would have to do it without DRM for me to be happy with it. Yes some people will abuse it and pay for one month and then download everything and cancel - but they already do that with P2P anyway, it's just a cost of doing business.

A second idea I thought up a while ago was basically giving out 'screeners' - find the people who influence everyone elses buying habits, and then offer that 1-2% of people unrestricted free access to the whole music library. In return, their friends end up buying music they recommend.. If you wanted to do it scientifically you could give people referrer IDs that their friends could use for a 5% discount, thereby being able to monitor who was buying from each recommender.

Re:You got it all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509576)

Downloading MP3z is an act of civil disobedience

Right up until the point you get caught and start whining like a little pussy about getting sued, and inevitably settling the case under an NDA. F1GhTZ TEH P0WAH!!

No, you're aiding and abetting them getting screwe (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509618)

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.

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (2, Insightful)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509486)

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 folder listing. For other bands I have bought just the albums I like the most.

Anathema, Katatonia, and Porcupine Tree are bands that I save up to complete in my collection because they're brilliant, I would never have been able to listen to them enough to become a fan if I had to pay for everything in advance. I've also listened to bands that I didn't like enough to buy, but no loss, I wouldn't have heard of them at all were it not for 'try before you buy' in the way of electronic distribution.

BTW, where I live it is NOT illegal to borrow an album and copy it for personal use, so most of my MP3s are technically legal anyway.

I'm not saying that everyone behaves like me, , but I'm fairly sure that the line of thought that 'every downloaded album is a lost sale' have absolutely nothing to do with reality. On the contrary, that the RIAA resorts to that kind of desperate logic at all means that they have already lost. Times are changing, people educate themselves, and see that their business model is unfair, unreasonable and archaic. When there is such an easy way to circumvent it, that's the route people will go.

My two øre...

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (1)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509504)

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 filesharing networks for music a few years ago. Most of the stuff I listen to now are legal liveset recordings of DJ's and the occaisional netlabel EP. At least with electronic music, people have figured out that the internet isn't an evil source of piracy and villany; it's free publicity. The problem with the system now isn't chubby college students with too much time on their hands and not enough homework; it's musicians who fail to realize a few fundamental facts about the music industry. The first is that a musician needs to make their money from playing music... gigging is the only way you'll ever make any money in this world. The CD is just a tool to promote live performances and other merchandise, but only an extreme minority of musicians actually make a large profit from CD sales alone. The second thing is that the music industry is an industry... it's interested in taking the biggest profit cut it can get, and musicians need to be business-smart or else they're going to get ripped off by their labels and promoters.

The funny thing is, rock-n-roll used to be the music of rebellion and anti-establishment. Now, that scene in particular has come to expect a ludicrious amount of financial loyalty from its fans and in turn become the establishment they used to oppose. Oh well, I guess the republican party used to be against big government, too... them times are a-changin'. ;)

Re:The buyers are the problem all too often (3, Interesting)

scwizard (941758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509622)

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.

WTF? (1)

Hitchcock_Blonde (717330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509329)

DRM a pain? I agree, but wasn't it the RIAA's clients who demanded DRM'd downloads in the first place?

Her Role (4, Insightful)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#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-

Re:Her Role (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509588)

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.

Lawyers have such *flexible* morals! (1)

FFFish (7567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509382)

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.

Re:Lawyers have such *flexible* morals! (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509495)

Amazing, really. Whoever supplies their paycheque is always in the right, no matter how wrong they are.

Let's look at it in a different light, whoever shares their files with me, is cool in my book...
What a stone-cold bitch.

Let me get a Hell Yeah !

Whore (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509385)

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

Please note... (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509400)

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?

Thanks Hilary, but no thanks.......... (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509406)

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.

Get a life Hilary (1)

packetmon (977047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509410)

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 those sued who were making businesses, but how about going after and pressuring those who promote it and condemn it at the same time... For instance, how many MS commercials have you seen promoting MS as something that can "burn and share your music!". How about having those companies explain it all for those who don't know then fining them for not following orders... Supposing you had a locksmith company touting "now you can crack safes too!" ... For certain kinds of locksmiths (safe crackers), they need to be registered. Shouldn't they face penalties for scammish advertising... "now you can be a REGISTERED locksmith too!"...

There is a p2p program I used for a second. I found all the songs I wanted to find... Guess what? They all had expiring licenses which allowed me to hear the song for a week. No burning, no sharing, etc. I thought it was a neat idea. I generally look for new things to buy instead of wasting my hard earned money for a 16 track album to find 1 good song. I'd rather have the album anyway. Maybe those in industry should work to create better guidelines. By now they should know telling a whole bunch of geeks, GenX'ers, etc "no you cant!" will only lead to rebellion... Maybe they should try taking a different approach.

divining the difference (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509449)

former

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

PREVIOUS being key (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509489)

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!

Potential threat (0, Offtopic)

neuroPuff (923273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509491)

Whatever view you have of Hilary Rosen, don't comfortably hold your opinion, as it is possible that much of her blog post was poorly composed by the top dominating member of her life, the Reality Acquisition Device, and quite possibly tells her what to think! "But it was the Reality Acquisition Device that really got my attention. As Gates describes it, we'll hold a portable device much like our Blackberries, Treos and the new Motorola Q that Gates was holding, and place it in front of us as we move through life. Our surroundings will be illuminated by more information - more reality. Have we been here before? where did we go? are there buildings or businesses that our social network of friends have told us about? what are the local issues related to those we have already expressed concerned about that the device remembers? As he is talking I am thinking about what a magnificent political organizing tool this is connecting old fashioned grassroots organizing principles with tools for feedback and action. Then he says something about how it will tell us about the restaurants in the area based on the food it knows we like to eat." Catch that? Gates? This blood hungry capitalist uses Windows to watch lesbian porn, and must pay loads, happily, due to DRM from the Windows codec! Every lesbian has a craving for it. Since she's too upperclass and civil to download from a peer to peer network, she is easily a proponent of DRM. These clues, which I have cleverly rendered together myself using higher end logic most Slashdot moderators would never dare to see at the end of the judgement tunnel, unconditionally proves it. She clearly has the testosterone to cold-heartedly have this view *and* whore herself to to the Huffington Post! Really, anyone who responds in opposition is a fascist. :-)

Re:Potential threat (1)

neuroPuff (923273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509513)

Oh, for the not so indention crippled version (catch up to the times Slashdot!): Whatever view you have of Hilary Rosen, don't comfortably hold your opinion, as it is possible that much of her blog post was poorly composed by the top dominating member of her life, the Reality Acquisition Device, and quite possibly tells her what to think!

"But it was the Reality Acquisition Device that really got my attention. As Gates describes it, we'll hold a portable device much like our Blackberries, Treos and the new Motorola Q that Gates was holding, and place it in front of us as we move through life. Our surroundings will be illuminated by more information - more reality. Have we been here before? where did we go? are there buildings or businesses that our social network of friends have told us about? what are the local issues related to those we have already expressed concerned about that the device remembers? As he is talking I am thinking about what a magnificent political organizing tool this is connecting old fashioned grassroots organizing principles with tools for feedback and action. Then he says something about how it will tell us about the restaurants in the area based on the food it knows we like to eat."

Catch that? Gates? This blood hungry capitalist uses Windows to watch lesbian porn, and must pay loads, happily, due to DRM from the Windows codec! Every lesbian (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/from-d -reality-in-the_b_21919.html [huffingtonpost.com] )has a craving for it. Since she's too upperclass and civil to download from a peer to peer network, she is easily a proponent of DRM. These clues, which I have cleverly rendered together myself using higher end logic most Slashdot moderators would never dare to see at the end of the judgement tunnel, unconditionally proves it. She clearly has the testosterone to cold-heartedly have this view *and* whore herself to to the Huffington Post! Really, anyone who responds in opposition is a fascist. :-)

This only proves... (4, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:This only proves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509668)

> 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.

Damn, Scientology really is getting too much pull in media circles these days, then :-/

Why she in no longer head of the RIAA.. (1)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509639)

I think this explains perfectly why she is no longer employed there.. :(

So what office is she running for? (4, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

It's funny how people change their opinions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509678)

...when THEY are the ones who are at the wrong side of the baton.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...