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?"
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:2, Interesting)
who's paying who? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Everyone complains about Republicans (Score:1, Interesting)
~~~
We could solve the problem once and for all (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice how Congress fears the NRA, and not just because they have guns. There are more file sharers than NRA members. Consider the possibilities.
Re:More info needed. (Score:1, Interesting)
8400 Crosslake Dr
Fairfax Station, VA 22039-2668
Home: (703) 690 - 1678
according to superpages (yeah yeah) last updated march in 2002.
don't have his ssn yet.
Gasp! Less-biased reporting! (Score:3, Interesting)
The New York times just says, "A decline caused by online file-sharing sites...." The LA Times does the same. CNN is owned by AOL/Time-Warner, and obviously just states it as though it's a credible fact. NBC/ABC/CBS ignore the issue, and follow CNN's lead when they don't. Fox... well, Fox will be Fox.
And here Reuters is at least insinuating that a doubt may exist. What's that Eric Blair/George Orwell (real name/pen name) quote about times of lies and revolutionary truths?
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality is that so far I haven't seen a very convincing defense of music piracy. That isn't to say I wouldn't be receptive to one (I am) but most of them boil down to a general denial of property rights or good reasons why the artist/label/retailer would benefit if they decided to allow copying. If I haven't heard a satisfactory defense (and I'm looking) it's no surprise that people with more important things to worry about haven't, either.
Fair use provisions in copyright law, shorter lifetimes for copyrights, etc. are all very noble, and well-advocated. But that's different from justifying the sharing of music recordings, when the copyright holder doesn't want this. The tactics used by the RIAA are objectionable-- but again that's a question of means not ends.
So ultimately, lawmakers who have much bigger things to worry about (like war and the economy) see the following facts:
To be honest, I may not like the RIAA, but I can see the problem. Unless there is a good reason why a copyright holder doesn't have to the right to limit copying of his work (hence copyright), then I might limit some of the more odious enforcement provisions, but I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to protect their rights.
Again, I'm receptive to such an argument. I do think that we're foolishly crushing fair use rights. I also think that copyrights (and while we're at it, patents) should be returned to their founding-father era lifespans. And criminalizing a good percentage of the public is a little silly, too. But that isn't the same as removing copyrights entirely.
The music industry (and especially artists) would greatly benefit from circulating free but low-bitrate versions of their music to drive CD and concert sales-- I think that they're shooting their profits in the foot by not embracing the technology (they're already streaming low-bitrate audio wirelessly anyway, aren't they?-- and to great effect). But they have the right to shoot their profits in the foot if that's what they want to do.
Instead of modding me down, post a reply telling me why forcing a copyright holder to allow free sharing of his work is good public policy. I want to believe, I just haven't heard a satisfactory argument yet.
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to disappoint you but Hollywood(MPAA/RIAA) is one of the primary contributors to the Democratic party, the other two being trial lawyers and labor unions. Have you already forgot who signed the DMCA into law?
Re:Influence abounds... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever since the Bill Of Rights. Ever read Amendments 3, 4, and 5? All pertain to private property rights.
Par for the Course for the GOP (Score:2, Interesting)
Now the PAC's are no longer the enemies that the Republican Revolution of '94 denounced them as, they've been co-opted.
I'm seeing less and less of a deliniation between the GOP and good old fashioned fascism. And why is nobody looking at this? There have been numerous authors who have attempted to predict what the "American" brand of fascism would look like going back to the 30's. While most of these were American communists (fascism's 'natural enemy'), many were pragmatic moderates concerned for democracy. Look at media critic George Seldes who published 'In Fact' during the 40's. He invented the entire industry of media criticism and fact checking news sources to bring to light biased reporting.
Many people were worried about corporate America's designs on democracy, such as their plot against Roosevelt. From "The Nazi Hydra In Fascist America" [spiritone.com]:
The Republican Party was infiltrated by Nazi's during the 30's, on October 22, 1936, the New York Post reported:
This was backed up by a report on the 30th in the New York World-Telegram stating:
The pre-WWII fascist designs of the Republican Party have transformed into a message that claims anyone who doesn't conform to their model of what American life is supposed to be is an enemy of America. Rather than the old heirarchy of race and nationality, it's a new one of wealth and productivity above all else. The Nazi's didn't sell an unpalatable message to the German people, the Republicans aren't about to try and sell their unappetizing designs to Americans.
Dig through history, look at the patterns and relationships, the small tweaks don't hide the same old plan. The idea is to create a new heirarchy to lawfully subjugate those who don't belong. To insure that the morality and beliefs of the ruling class of this new heirarchy live forever. It's based on faith and the support of Right Wing Christian organizations like the Southern Bapti
Nitpick. (Score:4, Interesting)
This can be important. Various artists, some big name (I believe the Smashing Pumpkins were one) were far more ready to embrace music on the Internet than the copyright holders, but of course, the artists couldn't really do anything about it as they were under contract to the label.
Is it their fault for signing to a major? Technically yes, but it's hard to blame them, even for me. It's nice to see someone like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs get mainstream radio play, but it doesn't happen very often. If you want the big audiences, you sign to the big labels, and lose your rights.
I think that the limits on copyright should be much shorter than they currently are, but I think that within those limits, people should be free to do what they want with their work. It's a shame it's often not up to the artists, but I don't think we can rightly change that with legislation.
Re:Now that they've got a Republican in the post.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Has anyone realized that the navy commercials now end with "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten it"? What the hell is that?
As the government and corporations fuse, they are solidifying of new aristocracy. This means that our individual voices get drowned out. Where in the constitution does it say they get representation? Last time I checked, the government was of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I know it will never happen, but I think the only way to save our government, is to ban lobbying (legalized bribery). How can we compete w/ business giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars in 'incentive'?
I think I need to start my own country (think of the exodus from Battletech). No RIAA, no DMCA, no waste of our lives to get better profits on oil.
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality is that so far I haven't seen a very convincing defense of music piracy.
I'm not going to take a stab at this, but I'd like to hear what you think about a few points. Who knows, maybe it'll clear up the debate a little bit.
Let's say that distribution of pro-abortion material was deemed offensive in your district. Further, it was deemed obscene. Now let's say that people really do feel that way, and it's not just an attempt to squelch free speech.
If you were to distribute informational pamphlets that discussed abortion in a positive light, you would be committing an illegal act. Furthermore, you would be distributing (or attempting to distribute) these pamphlets to people who truly found them offensive.
Would you be right in doing it, even if it's illegal?
Sorry that I used "abortion" but I'm in the buckle of the bible belt, and we run into those questions down here.
How does this relate to "music piracy"? Because it serves to illustrate several assumptions:
The trick is how copyright works. Consider for a moment what copyright means. It is not property. It can be bought and sold, but it is not quite property. It is a government granted, sanctioned, and enforced monopoly granted for a limited time. It is literally taking out phrases, ideas, and images from our freedom of speech.
Is that wrong? Well, I'd be hard pressed to say that was wrong, because we do have the sense that someone who makes something owns it, whether draftsman or craftsman. But at the same time, for freedom of speech to exist we shouldn't have to worry so much about what we say.
Also, consider what freedom of speech is: it's a description of a lack of controls upon an interaction. Copyright is intrinsically an interaction between two people when its value is assessed.
A work of art can be enjoyed solely by its creator without copyright coming in to play, much as land can be enjoyed only by its owner without needing someone else to desire that land.
So, copyright is a restriction upon speech and a restriction upon interaction, and it is granted for a limited time.
If that is true --- that copyright is a restriction, not a restriction in the sense of "two people cannot both own 100% of something" like land or material items, but a restriction in the sense that "I can own what you say" --- then perhaps the onus is not upon we the public to justify our use of something so much as it is upon the copyright holder to justify our lack of "permission" to use it.
Why do I mention this? You ask for a justification for "piracy." I think that's a bit turned around on its head.
When copyright was set out in America (note that I can only speak for America), most of the argument boiled down to "alright, we'll put up with this abomination, but only for a short while, and only if it benefits us" because copyright was not viewed as a "right."
Maybe it should be. I don't know. But regardless, if you're going to argue about the current copyright system, you need to consider upon whom the responsibility for justification is. Much of the law comes from discovering upon whom obligation for justification lies.
Most of the good arguments I've heard against music trading is that it dilutes the value of their property[1]. Does that hold up? Well, that's an argument for the statisticians.
These are just some things to consider. I'd like to hear anything you have to say concerning the subject. Please note that I am not "for" music piracy. Not really sure how I feel about it. I just would like to see a clearer discussion.
[1] - Please don't make the mistake of saying "it's bad because it's against the law." I've heard that a few times, and it's useless because when you're talking about right and wrong it makes little sense to discuss the factuality of the law. The premise behind the law, sure. But not the factuality.
Copyright is not a right (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem here is that you're furthering a common misconception. Copyright is not actually a right, as most 'rights' are understood. The right to free speech, the right to not be discriminated against based on race, etc, are all fundamental or basic--they are almost universally agreed upon in free society.
Copyright on the other hand is a privilege. It is a grant of monopoly on a particular creative work for a "limited" time. I feel like my last few posts have almost all been to this point, but I may as well hammer it home again: The Founders of this country were wary of ANY monopoly. As such, copyright was created in a very limited fashion, for the explicit purpose of encouraging creativity. But your conception of copyright as a right is by no means uncommon, and as you pointed out, logically the term 'copyright' taken in pieces seems to indicate a right of copy. But whereas the term copyright should theoretically apply to that very narrow definition that the Founders meant for it, it has been conflated with the idea of a basic right, a fundamental like free speech.
I say as emphatically as I can that copyright, taken as a personal fundamental right, is absolutely incommensurable with the idea of free expression. In England such a thing as you are suggesting is called Moral Right, and it is indeed perpetual. Do you want to write a Sherlock Holmes derivative that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's descendants disagree with? Well, you better be prepared to defend yourselves.
Again, I hate sounding like a broken record, but our culture is inextricably linked to mass-, privately owned media. The Founders didn't grant a basic right to copyright so that the nation wouldn't be deprived of a more valuable right which is dependant on the free access of ideas and expressions--the right to culture.
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:4, Interesting)
The world is moving towards an era of exceedingly low barriers to manufacturing and distribution. (See previous story on peer-to-peer manufacturing [slashdot.org].) Incumbents are selfishly seeking to impose artificial barriers, such as claiming property rights over ideas and information.
We will have an opportunity to abolish resource shortages and largely solve material needs. The alternative is people dying from disease and starvation due to artificial barriers, such as intellectual 'property rights', preventing them from receiving things such as drugs and food. These things will be affordable if artificial barriers, such as intellectual property', are removed. (It is is okay to charge competitive prices for materials, labour and other scarce resources.) Okay you may argue R&D needs to be recouped, but as simulations become more accurate R&D costs will plummet, rendering such arguments moot.
Re:Now I know who to vote for. (Score:4, Interesting)
Three things mar what would be an otherwise great justification of the practice here.
Errrm...but I really wasn't trying to justify it, just set up portions of a discussion. Either way, looks like someone does want to have the discussion, so maybe we can clear some things up.
there is a difference between distributing materials on the street[...see above post for rest...]
That does tend to block off the "moral crusader" route, which is probably the route you should take if you want to see the law repealed.
Perhaps, though, the distribution on the street and the distribution at the computer methods do differ.
Thinking this through: what is it about the computer that makes it to where people feel free about distributing files? It's not anonymity for the most part, as many traders set up nicknames or handles for themselves, establishing pseudonymity. Often they tend to like talking to one another and talking about what they like and don't like, and what's cool and what's not. ShareReactor is a good example of that. Most of the hugely successful communities either offer 1) incredible selection, or 2) a chatting community that leads people to "cool stuff."
Most tend to succeed at the latter, if they succeed at all. Note that this does not have to be intrinsic to the network, it can grow up around the network (BitTorrent, for example).
Well, you can get that from doing it on the street, too.
On the other hand, what's the likelyhood of you just plopping your butt down on the sidewalk and finding some psychadelic trance fans who have some nice tracks that they want you to check out for no reason at all but because they're cool.
Pretty low, unless you're at a trance convention, and then you're likely to run into marketroids and others who try to work the marketing system.
Also, on the street unless everyone has laptops or something along those lines and headphones and a way to connect, people aren't going to be able to listen as they trade and chat. LAN parties tend to be that way, but they aren't the sidewalk.
Come to think of it, LAN parties are very, very much like the P2P systems in some respects: lots of files swapped across, lots of stuff shown, listening while you trade, going off and doing other stuff, etc.
Most likely on the street you're going to have to give people tapes or CDs, and then you look like a radio station or a promoter.
So maybe there is something different between the examples. One is what the community is, and one is purely a protest, and probably wouldn't win any sympathies.
Maybe we should advertise the fact that at our next LAN party we will have files available to trade? Even that doesn't sound like the community. Hmmm...can you think of a way to do what the community is like and also have it be very public and "moral crusade"?
When in the culture of file trading, it often becomes very difficult to say that it's wrong. Most of the time, it's not people in dark trenchcoats saying "I got what'chu need, ese", it's more of "check this shit out, man! You liked that track by Infected Mushroom, right? Well, check out Trance Cowboy. Here's my collection, check a few of them out, they're righteous."
Has more in common with people sitting around with discmans and headphones swapping CDs.
But of course, they're not "swapping CDs" they are duplicating them. There isn't any burning need for them to buy the album so they can get that music. Maybe when we're in the culture it just *seems* right without *being* right.
Just something to consider. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
They explicitly stated the reasons: in order to promote further development and creativity.
But at the same time, most don't feel that that is the case, nor do they feel that the justification fits the extension. That means that the "justification" is a bit shaky, if not wrong.
Example: you and I are friends, and we both love The Simpsons. I
Re:first fatal flaw (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of them pay their dues; $35/yr. They have an incredible number of members, so it really adds up.
"And if you're paying a lobbyist
Granted, there is no such thing as "free" file sharing if you have to pay a lobbyist to defend the concept, but there are other desirable goals. It would be worth something to have competition in the music distribution industry, elimination of all the well-known unpopular business practices, the ability to make download and manipulate non-crippled files for personal use.
A boycott could be launched at zero cost. When the NRA launched a boycott of Smith & Wesson, they sent faxes. Today, we have e-mail, or the splash screens of the P2P programs themselves.
Influencing elections is a bit more expensive. Eventually, the money to do it will come from the hardware industry when they discover that crippleware media players are next on the boycott hit list. CSS and Macrovision were "under the radar" for the average home user, so the hardware industry will assume that is that DRM is OK until consumers resist. Let's see what happens when a few million crippled music players turn into "shelfware".