Mitch Bainwol To Succeed Hilary Rosen As RIAA Head 480
bmarklein writes "The RIAA has announced that it has named Mitch Bainwol, former chief of staff to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, as chairman & CEO. He replaces Hilary Rosen, who left earlier this month. This confirms the speculation that the RIAA would appoint a well-connected Republican (Rosen was a Democrat)." Several readers have submitted links to CNET's coverage as well.
Update: 07/29 12:30 GMT by J : Lobbyists wield incredible power nowadays, and Slate's report on why was enlightening. Here's
part 1
and
part 2.
Includes lyrics to the rap recorded for Rosen's going-away party by some of the most powerful people in the world: "Who wants the job of Hilary Rosen? / How 'bout the dream team of Bono and Tauzin?"
Walking the walk (Score:3, Insightful)
Former? (Score:4, Insightful)
frick! er frist er... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
You know this is a bad thing. He's a right-wing Republican; the GOP is pro-rich, pro-big corporations, and pro-personal interest.
Expect even more tyranny from the RIAA.
I shudder at this prospect... not that the old person was good, though...
Riiiiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said property rights was a great American tradition? And rewarding for whom? Certainly not for us.
will you people calm down... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hit me.
Re:It figures. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I know who to vote for. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Now that I mentioned politics, I'm readying for flame)
Influence abounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Pre-paid senators...
Already I see there's gonna be some problems with this. Mainly the RIAA getting laws that people know aren't kosher passed. And possibly a little too much influence on some issues...
And before I forget:
"What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?"
When the F**K did property rights become a "great american tradition"?!?
Big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference I can see this concievably making is that now the constant anti-RIAA snipes on slashdot will no longer be occationally seen to contain unhelpful sexist comments, now that the RIAA has a spokesman and not a spokeswoman. Other than that I do not imagine the quantity or nature of slashdot RIAA posts, nor the actions of the RIAA, will change one bit.
Maybe this will backfire... (Score:1, Insightful)
And what's good for Democrats is bad for Republicans, and vice versa. So maybe instead of seeing Mr. Bainwol pressuring Frist, you will see Frist pressuring Mr. Bainwol.
Or maybe everyone's a sellout.... We can always hope, right? At least he can't possibly be worse than Hillary Rosen.
Re:Bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm not going to let who the RIAA appoints as their CEO dictate who I vote for in '04.
Re:Bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing before today's story, you've never heard of this guy. I haven't either so don't feel bad. Sure we all know Frist, but he is hardly a galvinizing conservative icon.
Of course...your second line shows your true colors. Pro-rich, pro-big corporations, blah blah. Same 'ole line from the liberals. Who paints who with broad brush strokes?
Maybe you should give him a chance, before damning him. At least bother to learn a little bit about the person instead of spewing liberal talking points.
Everyone complains about Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
Both parties deserve the bashing, but you're talking out of your ass if you think the Democrats are a safe haven from RIAA/Disney/et. al.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2, Insightful)
He really meant exploitation of artists and monopolies.
Conservative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget Frist is from TN, the center of the country music industry - probably the closest you can get to Hollywood without actually going to Hollywood. And he has plenty of pull of his own [commondreams.org].
I'm rather sick of these radical modern day liberals (as opposed to old school liberals, who actually believed in liberty) being called "conservatives." These modern day robber barrons are not conservators of anything except greed. I have in mind a much appropriate word [reference.com] to describe them...
A bit of reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
Any good California law firm (as you know, we tend to have the most experience in such a field) will have hired one attorney into partnership for every State Supreme Court Justice, each attorney having previously been a different justice's clerk. After a while of typing all the J's decisions, they know what the Justice wants to read when going over correspondances and court pleadings.
This new head is entirely about the personal experience of working with the head of the senate majority leader, and less about being qualified to lead the RIAA into a rational future that isn't based on getting money through suing people, who by their definition aren't likely to be able to afford a good lawyer.
Re:WELCOME TO MY FOES LIST U FAGGOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Statement of boycott-riaa.com on Mitch Bainwol (Score:3, Insightful)
first fatal flaw (Score:3, Insightful)
If those "file traders" would just leave behind the music of the corporations that sue them we wouldn't need a lobby - the problem would take care of itself because the publishers wouldn't find enough profit in the music industry to justify sustaining an RIAA. The problem is "file traders" - like the MP3.COM of yore - don't necessarily believe in that stuff about empowering the artist or in helping build a new model of distribution that would help the creators while bypassing the suits. They generally don't care about anything but free music. And if you're paying a lobbyist to defend your (narrow and shortsighted) interest, it ain't free any more.
Re:Riiiiight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh nobody...just the FIFTH AMENDMENT!
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
The original vision the founders had for property rights (including the original 14+14 copyright), is what made the American middle class possible. So they're very rewarding, for you and everyone else. If you don't have personal property rights, you have no incentive to work because the fruits of your labor can be taken from you at the whim of the government.
Now music...that's a whole other story...
It's because Republicans are on top (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not such a bad thing.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This may affect several points:
1. Yes, the GOP is in power, but Hollywood and the Music industry are standard DEM strongholds. They may not like their new boy, or at least won't invite him to the parties at Rob Reiner's house.
2. They have now unzipped their fly, and are acting pretty brazenly partisan with such a move. This will turn many democrats in congress into automatic defense mode, who may slow legislation down 'just because'.
3. In the end, Bush & Co. may end up having to choose between supporting a major US export (entertainment) vs. giving money to those 'liberal jack-offs in hollywood'-- depending on what Karl Rove says about electoral trends, that could break either way.
Change the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is not a constitutional right, like free speech. While Congress is empowered to legalize copyright, it is not required to do so. Filesharing could be legalized tomorrow if Congress just passed a bill to repeal copyright.
Change the Law [goingware.com] explains this in more detail, and suggests some steps to take to legalize filesharing. You can take these steps in almost any country, not just the US:
- Speak Out
- Vote
- Write to Your Elected Representatives
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Practice Civil Disobedience
If you feel as I do that what I have to say in my article is important for others to read, please link to it from your own website, your weblog, or other message boards.Thank you for your attention.
The Big Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
Krugman writes: "Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage -- a reward for the loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now owe their primary loyalty to the party, rather than to the industries they represent. So corporate cash, once split more or less evenly between the parties, increasingly flows in only one direction."
Re:It's because Republicans are on top (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could stand up and fight for what you believe in.
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:2, Insightful)
I need money. You offer me money in exchange for my television. I sign a contract giving you the television in exchange for money. Later, my neighbor, who has been coming to visit me to watch my television, is outraged that I gave it to you. Since he's been watching it at my house, he goes to your house and demands to watch it there. You say no. Since you're denying him his right to watch television, he breaks into your house and watches the television whenever he wants. If you ask him to leave, you're obviously a greedy SOB. Sound familiar?
I don't care for the current state of IP law in this country. However, it is the law. As a citizen, I have the responsibility to obey it or change it by peaceful means. Those who suggest my desire to listen to whatever music I want to for free requires civil disobedience to free us from government tyranny do a great disservice to those who have used, and continue to use, civil disobedience to accomplish noble and worthy goals.
Here's the way it is, folks: the musicians who sign away their rights for a bowl of lentil stew do so voluntarily. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them to do so. No one put a gun to their heads and forced them to become musicians. They chose to make music and they chose to market it in a certain manner. Now, they have to live with the consequences of those decisions. This is called being an adult.
How do I deal with the RIAA? Simple: I don't buy CDs I feel are not worth the cost. Neither do I steal the music via P2P. If it's on EMusic [emusic.com], I download it legally. If it's on the radio, I listen to it legally. If it's available at a used CD store, I buy it legally.
The latter is important, since the right to do so was established in a court of law after a challenge by the RIAA. No matter your feelings about the current legal system, it's the best we have at the moment. With time, and the proper case, sanity will prevail.
In the meantime, have the courage to act on your principles, not your appetites. If you object to paying outrageous prices for junk music, don't pay; but don't steal it. Instead, do the principled thing: listen to music that's offered to you on your terms. Better yet, learn to make music yourself...they can't take that away from you.
Re:Nitpick. (Score:3, Insightful)
First you rightly see that the artists are not part of the current market for 'tunes'. The RIAA sees the artist much like Ford sees a lug-nut (important, but easily replaced by any number of near identical lug-nuts).
Secondly, you are correct that the copyright holders should be allowed to do what they want with their content. Again, the thought of forcing a copyright holder to do something in particular strikes me as serious injustice.
But the connection you fail to make, and that you and Wellspring seem to be missing is that this is purely a problem of technology breaking down the barriers (high cost of production, *especially* the physical media on which the music was 'printed', and an oligopoly of distrubution) against competition in the market.
Due to collusion and lack of competition, CDs cost the same now as they did 10 years ago (if not more). Compare that to cellular phone service and you'll get the idea. If there had been a normal market, then the price for a tune would have been $5 five years ago, and the $1 Apple is charging would not seem so cheap now, it might seem expensive!
Now, with technology, it is becoming cheap to enter the market, and the huge profits of the RIAA members are hanging by the _thread_ that is their continued ability to act as gatekeeper (by exerting monopoly-like power) for what is heard on the radio/MTV/etc. The RIAA believes they can further manipulate the market to prevent competition with laws proscribing the creation of a sharing shadow market.
What the RIAA does not understand is that the longer they delay competition, the more drastic the emergence of an alternative market will be for their current business practices. In the end a new supply/demand equilibrium point will be reached where artists and consumers meet, but without the costs of 'printing' onto plastic, artificially created 'hype'/'buzz'/etc, no payola to Clear Channel, no anti-pirate tax on blank media, etc.
The new market will be extremely diverse and in total far *larger* than exists now under the RIAA stranglehold, and without the stranglehold, the RIAA folks will shrivel extremely quickly. This will be good for the market and for the vast majority of tune-creators (who are now being held down so that a single 'group'/'artist'/'lug-nut' can be used to milk the consumer with as little risk as possible). Technology will continue to advance, and we may see a real flourishing of the arts.
And as for the copyright holders. They will make decisions about their content within the new market (making cost/benefit decisions, etc). Some copyright holders may decide that the market is not right for them (for whatever reason; artistic or economic, etc) and NOT RELEASE THEIR CONTENT. They can put it in a museum or only perform in front of 1000 folks paying $1 MILLION each -whatever. But we, the consumers will not be bending over backwards for the profit of a small group of shareholders from a small number of corporations.
Limiting copyrights would be good for similar reasons, but that's a different part of structure of this market and need not be considered central to this discussion.
-ptah
Re:frick! er frist er... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh... I am a Republican but on this issue they are pissing me off...
Funny how Americans say "I am a Republican" while a Dutchman would say "I voted VVD last election"... Did you get some sort of label when you were born? :-)
Seriously, it seems like people in the US pretty much always vote what they always voted, simply because that's the camp they feel they belong to... Nothing's ever going to change that way.
Re:Riiiiight... (Score:3, Insightful)
We almost did, but then we punted the conservatives out, and Treudeau took great pains to 1) ensure that we don't become an oligarchy (by not entrenching property rights), and 2) piss off the American president at the time (just for sh**s and giggles)
Re:Bad thing (Score:2, Insightful)
umm...from what I have seen, neither.
Re:Copyright is not a right (Score:2, Insightful)
Its an interesting argument...Most people are overvaluing copyright by bringing it up to the traditional value of 'rights', whereas your argument is about lowering the value of 'rights' to the level of copyright. But in response:
You'll pardon my bluntness: If you assume that basic human rights are granted to you by the government, then you've as much as given them up already. Basic rights can certainly be suppressed by a powerful government, but that a government does not suppress them is not the same as the government granting them. The former is simply justice being served, while the latter sets up exactly the power aristocracy the Founders tried to vigorously prevent.
To illustrate, given the logic that a government can grant basic human rights, you must logically assume that the government is also the proprietor of those human rights, for who can give what one does not first have? If the government owns my right to say what I want, then do I have that right?
Re:Bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you really want a candidate who's pro-poor??? "What we need in this county is more poverty!"
This is WAY off topic! (Score:1, Insightful)
Communism is the "natural enemy" of freedom.
Ihis post has NOTHING to do with the original and is a bunch of marxist trash.Remember its never about the "issue" its always about the marxist revolution.
Re:There is nothing wrong with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way, the "rest of the world" is becoming more liberal, not less. Gay marriages are becoming far more common outside the U.S. For example, they are now completely legal in Ontario as of a few months ago, and the Canadian government is drafting law to make it legal throughout Canada.
Re:There is nothing wrong with this. (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, up until very recently, if both partners worked, marriage resulted in a tax increase. Second, if the supposed marriage tax breaks were for bearing children, then why would there be a separate child tax credit?
Obviously wrong as well. The so-called "marriage penalty" only applied to a fraction of two-income married couples, generally when they earned widely disparate incomes. There are a number of financial/legal benefits to being married, at least in U.S. society.
if you think it's the government's place to say what marriage is intendted to be, you should probably move to a country where those views are shared.
Well, the government (in the U.S. as well as other places) already is in the business of saying what marriage is. And I think that is the point of gay marriage advocates. If marriage was simply an institution defined and administered by religious institutions, without any sort of government involvement or benefit, then this would be a different story. Gay couples could get married all they want by establishing their own church institutions with other like-minded individuals or by seeking out friendly denominations. But the government is in the business of sanctioning marriages, which creates a completely different scenario, and in all fairness, it is marginalizing a group of people and denying them priveleges that are given to others, something that is antithetical to what we would like to believe the U.S. is about.
Back on-topic now...
Re:Now that they've got a Republican in the post.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at the Enron situation. So many politicians had their hands in that cookie jar. When it collapsed, no one was interested in prosecuting the guilty - everyone was more interested in saving their own derriere.
The time to push for such a thing is now, before the corporations become even more fused with our government. We are quickly reaching a point of no return, and if the people lose their power in the government to the corporation, we will never get it back.