RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen to Become CNBC Commentator 304
alen writes "According to a story by the New York Post the CEO of the RIAA is stepping down. She is going to be an anchor on CNBC. Maybe this is going to signal a change in the way record companies think about file sharing?"
don't count on it (Score:5, Insightful)
No dearth of crazies to take the helm (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow, the crew of the ship just doesn't understand that its about to capsize. Or they're too afraid to break their contracts and mutiny.
Mouthpiece or policymaker? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, this story is posted with the question "Maybe this is going to signal a change in the way record companies think about file sharing?"
This seems rather silly, also noting that Rosen is stepping down to become a news commentator, aka a talking head, aka a mouthpiece. I have very little inclination to believe that Rosen has had, or will have any large influence on RIAA policy. Am I wrong?
-Greg
Change?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:attention mozilla users... (Score:2, Insightful)
nice.
No it wont (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it will just signal a change (read: increase) in the amount of negative media attention that file swapping gets
Re:What's the differerence (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen. We've seen some real dumb shit Hillarys in the news over the past few years.
I think that "someday" is upon us.
Too bad ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rosen just a mouthpiece? NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of you keep saying Hilary was just a mouthpiece of the RIAA and had no hand in setting policy. You actually think that she might turn out to be some kind of ethical human being after leaving the RIAA.
Let me give you a bit of a wake-up call: if she were an ethical human being then she wouldn't have allowed herself to serve as the RIAA's mouthpiece for any amount of money. Any ethical human being with any concern for the public welfare would have rejected any carrots the RIAA dangled in front of them and given them the big "Fuck you". There are plenty of other jobs out there that deal with media and technology that wouldn't require a daily sacrifice of ethical principles.
No, this is seriously bad news. Now not only is she evil, but she's evil being pumped straight into homes on a nightly basis. It wouldn't surprise me if this move was secretly orchestrated by the RIAA so as to get someone with their bias into the mainstream media in an unsuspecting, insidious way.
Re:don't count on it (Score:1, Insightful)
Or its going change the way CNBC thinks about copyright.
Re:Scary thing is.... (Score:1, Insightful)
no differerence (Score:3, Insightful)
No difference they are owned by the same people. They and different but identical people own the RIAA member companies as well. So, the opions are the same. How else could a corporate loudmouth be taken seriously as a journalist unless journaists mostly reported for corporate loudmouths?
Every aspect of traditional electronic publishing is regulated, degenerate and obsolete. It's not a free press and their choice of talking heads only proves the point.
Re:Scary thing is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) If you were there, and no one else was making sense, isn't the best thing to try to fix things from the inside? There are plenty of people (unsuccessfully) trying to talk reason to the RIAA from the outside already.
b) If she's covering ass so she can play both sides as a journalist, that sounds good to me. How much have we heard both sides of piracy so far?
I've never once heard a hint of sarcasm when "journalists" read the RIAA's statistics on how bad they're doing or how many gazillions of dollars piracy has cost them.
My first fear when reading this article was "great, as if the news media wasn't biased enough already against file sharing". I was quite surprised to hear someone complaining that she would be taking our side in the news media.
Re:don't count on it (Score:3, Insightful)
The stockholders (possibly including your relatives and even you, if y'all have any money invested in mutual funds). Most of them are over 40, don't know or care what a "P2P" is, and don't want to lose what's left of their retirement investments just so college students can download songs for free.
Good luck convincing them that the RIAA needs to die or radically change...
Re:Scary thing is.... (Score:1, Insightful)
if the real power was so way off base, and you don't think you can represent them, you leave.
she was a warmongering bitch for a long time.
if she didn't want the title
fuck hr.
Yeah, things'll change, alright. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think Different (Score:1, Insightful)
You a tard or a RIAA shill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time, get all of the facts from your bosses before posting. Had you ever heard of Radiohead before getting your assignment?
Radiohead is a case study in the use of Internet promotion:
Radiohead's honour follows the group's decision to ditch traditional marketing methods for their recent album Kid A in favour of internet promotion.
That's from a winter 2000 BBC news article. [bbc.co.uk]
Radiohead is a long-standing Internet success story, and if they'd listened to your friends, they'd be making a hell of a lot less money today.
An increasing number of artists have found that distribution of MP3s via Internet Radio and the networkss your OwN3rZ want to get rid of plus touring and direct sale of CDs at gigs and via the Net is a perfectly reasonable way to make a living. One has to sell a lot less records to make a living when one is getting 90% of the gross profit off a $10 CD than 1% of a $20 CD. Search for Janis Ian on slashdot. She's been making records longer than you've probably been alive. Find out if she thinks the record industry protects the rights of musicians.
With respect to your. . . interesting interpretation of copyright law, was your omission of any mention of "fair use" in your post deliberate, or left out of the RIAA propaganda you obviously based your post on.
Speaking as a published writer, I certainly support reasonable copyright protection. I don't need my copyright extended to 50 or 75 or 1000 years after my death. I don't want anyone to destroy computers by the millions to "protect" my work. I don't want protecting my work to come at the price of eventually forcing consumer electronics development to move out of the US and if EU follows the US lead as it seems to be doing, following software development to India and China. If someone xeroxes a copy of one of my print articles at a public library, I don't want any of your buddies to burn down the library to "protect" my copyright.
Oh, BTW, I'm working with an independent musician now. I can't find any friends willing to host her work for P2P networks because they're afraid of attack by the people who you are being a paid or unpaid mouthpiece for. So promoting her outside the RIAA framework is more difficult. Tell your bosses "Thanks, assholes"...
I don't know if you are on the RIAA payroll or not. You certainly parrot their party line perfectly.
However, since you do such a good job of playing a mouthpiece for RIAA viewpoints, if you aren't getting paid by them, you're awfully stupid. Go to their site and apply for a job. Use your post as proof that you're good at spreading "the good word" in a hostile forum.
Perhaps there are even a few people stupid enough to believe you.