RIAA's Hillary Rosen To Resign At End Of Year

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...2&u=/nm/20030123/music_nm/music_riaa_rosen_dc

Swan Song for Music Biz Lobbyist
Thu Jan 23, 4:08 AM ET

By Justin Oppelaar and Pamela McClintock

NEW YORK (Variety) - Recording Industry Assn. of America (RIAA (news - web sites)) chairman Hilary Rosen will resign at the end of the year, after nearly two decades with the music industry's lobbying arm -- including four tumultuous years on the front line of a pitched battle against Internet piracy.

Rosen did not name a successor. The RIAA will form a committee to search for a chief over the next several months. Cary Sherman, the group's president, will continue to oversee day-to-day operations.

Rosen departs amid one of the most difficult times in the history of the music business: the record labels are fighting an uphill battle against rampant digital piracy while struggling to develop business models of their own in cyberspace.

The RIAA's announcement was rushed out under the gun Wednesday, after the information began to spread around the industry and later to online news outlets.

Rosen cited a desire to eliminate any distractions caused by potential rumors -- and to spend more time with her family -- as the main reasons for her departure.

"I've been at RIAA for 17 years, my children are young and I have made this announcement knowing it's several months down the road so we can get it out of the way and focus on the tasks at hand," Rosen told Daily Variety. "There has been a dramatic shift in the music industry, and I think that the record companies are just now starting to come out on the other side."

Rosen has been the public face of the industry throughout the piracy crisis -- spearheading the copyright-infringement suit that eventually crushed Napster (news - web sites) last year, and taking a considerable amount of heat from irate devotees of the peer-to-peer services.

"She has been a lightning rod because of the incendiary ship she was trying to steer," one Hollywood executive said. "The music industry was the first to get attacked by pirates. No one would have wanted to be in that position."

That battle is likely to move to a new level in the coming months. Rosen's efforts led to a recent court decision that cleared the way for the record business to identify individual users of file-sharing networks -- potentially exposing those users to legal action.

She also represented the industry's point of view in the fierce debate over artists' rights and recording contracts, which heated up over the past two years in a series of hearings in Washington and the California State Legislature.

The record executives that Rosen represented to the press and Capitol Hill had nothing but praise for the way she navigated the perilous path ahead of her.

"Hilary Rosen has been a tremendous advocate for the recorded music industry," EMI North America CEO David Munns said. "She has been incredibly effective in raising awareness about the important value and impact that music has on our lives, our culture and our economy. She has also been extremely influential in both transforming the music industry in the digital age and in fighting piracy."

Added Universal Music Group chairman Doug Morris: "Throughout her tenure, her insights, dedication and passion have benefited everyone (who) loves music. She'll be greatly missed."

Warner Music Group chief executive Roger Ames called Rosen "a remarkable leader, and when she leaves at the end of the year, she will take with her our sincere gratitude, respect and admiration."


VALENTI VALIDATION

She's also earned accolades from her counterpart in film, Motion Picture Assn. of America president Jack Valenti. The two have been close partners on a number of initiatives in Washington and elsewhere, and have stood shoulder to shoulder in the piracy debate.

"Hilary has been a valiant, brave leader for the U.S. music industry," Valenti said. "I confess that I am an ardent admirer of her skills, her tenacity and her integrity. She'll be a hard act to follow."

Rosen has had a Herculean task over the past few years in trying to balance the widely divergent opinions of the five major label groups on such critical issues as digital piracy. She was charged with presenting a united front to the outside world even as the labels bickered among themselves over how aggressive they should be in fighting copyright infringers.

At the same time, she's had to suffer the slings and arrows of many an infuriated music consumer and media pundit who singled out Rosen as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with the music business. She was the subject of a closet industry of derision in cyberspace, ranging from furious rants on countless message boards to parody Web sites.

Widely regarded in the entertainment business as smart and savvy, Rosen hasn't hesitated to stand up to Capitol Hill lawmakers who have routinely berated the music biz for turning out albums with violent and salacious lyrics.

She's also been able to strike important compromises when necessary: Earlier this month, she signed a landmark treaty with Silicon Valley spelling out joint principles when it comes to fighting piracy. Deal eased months of acrimony between the music biz and the tech industry, which threatened to throw up a roadblock to fighting piracy.

 

Yeah, that's a shame...I'm cryin', cryin' ya hear... Another industry flak bites the dust, soon to be replaced by another just as bad...great advocate for the industry, to be sure: great nemesis for recording artists and their millions of listeners, like us....

ED

 

Can I nominate Shawn Fanning?

 

He's got my vote

ED

 

The article I read said her salary (evidently paid by those poverty-striclen record companies) was "seven figures". I have about as much regard for her as I do the commissioner of major league baseball--another organization where companies routinely complain about losing money while paying select entertainers millions of dollars and showing massive disregard for the fans who patronize their business.

 

well said!

 

"Added Universal Music Group chairman Doug Morris: 'Throughout her tenure, her insights, dedication and passion have benefitted everyone (who) loves music. She'll be greatly missed.'"

He should have said benefitted "everyone who tries to make money without actually making the music."

She only did harm to the music buying public, and IMHO, the artists who create music as well.

Enjoy you retirement.

 

I just HOPE that the next president of the RIAA understands that "going afer" people who download and putting "copyright protection on everything" to make some "bumps in the road" is the WRONG approach.

The money thats lost is from professional pirates who knock of 10,000 copies of the new Britney Spears Lp and sell it overseas for 5 bucks.
The RIAAs mantra wont stop them, and will only piss off customers, let alone violating fair use rights.

Wanna stop the Pirates? Get the goverement to impose REALLY strick penalties if you are caught botlegging 1,000 titles or more. Under that is not even a ripple in an ocean to the record industry.

 

What fair use rights are being violated? I'm no fan of the RIAA, but people seem to be complaining about their right to fair use without knowledge of the doctrine.

Here is a post made by Dwmann which gives a nice overview:


What we have in this and other threads is not an ongoing argument about what Fair Use IS, but, rather, a demonstation that human nature dictates that people will always tend to interpret something that is vague and unclear based on their own idea of how they think it SHOULD be, which often ignores the reality of ACTUAL meaning.

In a previous thread I stated: "The rights that you WERE granted by the Fair Use act are VERY limited - you are allowed to make copies, FOR PERSONAL USE, of software you have PURCHASED. You may not make copies to sell, trade, or lend. You may not make copies for your friends, or receive copies from your friends, unless the receiver of the copy already owns a legitimate PURCHASED copy of the software in question. You are not allowed to buy software and copy it, then sell the software and keep the copy. You can make copies of radio and TV broadcasts, but the same rules apply to THOSE copies." Allow me to expand on this.

First of all, most of the interpretations of Fair Use begin with the presupposition that the underlying assumption of Fair Use is that copying is LEGAL. If this were the case, the law would not be framed as it is. The underlying assumption of Fair Use is that copying is ILLEGAL. Fair Use ennumerates (in rather vague terms) cases when copying is PERMITTED. If the underlying assumption of the law was that copying is LEGAL, the law would ennumerate (in equally vague terms) cases when copying is NOT permitted. Therefore, when you discuss fair use you have to begin with the assumption that it is NEVER legal to copy ANY copyrighted work, and investigate the EXCEPTIONS that are enumerated in the law.

Most of the exceptions enumerated by Fair Use DO NOT extend ANY rights to the general consumer. They extend rights to institutions, critics, teachers, students, scholars, historians, etc. (See cbsolson's post in this thread.) The rights of consumers are ONLY granted to the extent that I have listed above.

Legally, you CANNOT dub a Madonna CD and give the copy to a friend. Legally, you can't even copy an OOP DCC or MFSL disc and give it to a friend - for example, if you make a copy of the DCC "Pet Sounds," legally you are just making a copy of "Pet Sounds." Whether or not it is Steve's mastering is irrelevant. DCC paid royalties to produce the discs. DCC may have HAD legal recourse against you for copying the disc when it was in print, but since it is OOP, when you make a copy you are guilty of either:
(A) Counterfeiting. if you try to pass it offf as a legitimate DCC collector's item, or
(B)Piracy, i.e., infringing on the rights of the original copyright holder.

You CAN buy a disc and give it away or sell it. YOU CAN buy a disc for personal use and copy it AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT, provided all copies are for PERSONAL use. And technically, if you DO make a copy you must do so on a CD-R intended for MUSIC, on which royalties have beeen PAID. You CAN be prosecuted for copying a CD to a CD-R intended for a computer, on which NO royalties have been paid, even if you do so for personal use. You CANNOT buy a disc, make a copy, and then sell or give away the disc and keep the copy, because your Fair Use rights to the disc are transfered to the new owner. Once you sell or give away the disc, you NO LONGER HAVE rights to the disc or a copy of the disc under Fair Use. And no, you CANNOT make a copy and give it away. And NO, you can't "make the tape and give it to your neighbor" if you record a TV show, although you CAN keep the tape for PERSONAL use.

Fair use does NOT mean that "once I've purchased the item, I can do with it as I wish, within reasonable bounds" or "you still have the right to burn a copy as a gift for anybody....within reason," or that "Making copies AND selling is what's illegal." It is illegal to make copies for ANYTHING other than personal use, whether you profit from the copy OR NOT.

quote:
Your're right, copying in and of itself is in no way illegal, nor is passing that copy along to a friend or relative or acquaintance.

This is the BASIC fallacy running THROUGHOUT these threads. Copying in and of itself IS illegal. Fair Use ONLY ennumerates EXCEPTIONS when copying is PERMITTED. Technically, "uploading an album cover or even a record label" IS illegal unless you obtain permission. Even quoting a line from a copyrighted work in a school paper is illegal, UNLESS you follow very specific rules of annotation.

Of course, none of this has really made any difference until recently. If a record company tried to prosecute you for giving a CD-R to your buddy they would have looked like fools. If Capitol/EMI tried to prosecute you for making a copy of the DCC "Pet Sounds" they would have been laughed out of court. And no one would have tried to prosecute you for making a copy on a computer CD-R on which no royalties had been paid for the same reason. However, what everyone needs to understand is that much of what people have been doing thinking it was their RIGHT has NEVER been LEGAL. But the laws have not been enforceable, and what has technically been "piracy" all along occurred on such a small scale that it wasn't worth bothering with. The internet, file sharing, and mass CD swaping is changing all that. Until now, the opinion of the public (read: the part of the public, i.e., special interests, that counts, not you or me) and the legislative and legal branches of government have looked at most copyright holders (especially the music industry) as the boy who cried wolf. They kept predicting all these TERRIBLE things, and they never occurred. BUT THEY ARE HAPPENING NOW. So in a way, when the record companies argued against the reel-to-reel or cassette recorder they were just anticipatation something that would not reach fruition until the digital age.

In the US, no one really cares what individuals do until a LOT of individuals begin to do something PUBLICLY that others perceive as some kind of threat. For example, psychedelics were being used by a very small segment of the population for twenty years before the first anti-LSD/psychedelic legislation was passed in California late in 1966. Legislation that was a DIRECT result of the high public profiles of people like Leary, and Kesey, and the outrage at Kesey's acid tests in 65-66. The point being, a thing was legal or ignored for a long time because it wasn't worth bothering with. Once it started making the evening news, the authorities jumped on it with a quickness.

America does not like to have its boat rocked. As long as copying remained something going on between friends on a very small scale, it did not matter if the activity was strictly legal or not. Nobody really cared, except the record companies, which just looked like they were trying to squeeze every possible cent out of the consumer each time they raised the issue. File-sharing and CD burning on a mass scale have changed that, because the FEAR generated by file-sharing and CD burning on a mass scale goes beyond the record companies. It addresses concepts of OWNERSHIP. Even the computer industry (which created the problem by making file-sharing and CD burning on a mass scale POSSIBLE) is jumping on the copy-proof bandwagon.

It is easy to sit around and argue what you THINK fair use is, or what you think it SHOULD be, but it is POINTLESS. It is easy to sit around and talk about how file sharing or mass trading or just sharing music with your friends is justified because the record companies deserve it, or that it really HELPS the record companies because it spreads the music, or that it should be OK because it really doesn't HURT anyone, or (insert whatever your argument is), but all any of THAT is is a bunch of people expessing opinions on a chat board - opinions that don't mean squat to the copyright holders or the people who write and enforce the law. The bottom line is, file sharing, CD trading, and most everything else that people on this or other boards claim is OK on moral grounds, is legal, or should be legal, is NOT legal. Copying copyrighted material is illegal, period, except for exceptions outlined in Fair Use and other legislation. And the rights granted the CONSUMER are strictly limited, as outlined above.

I do not engage in file sharing, CD burning, or anything along those lines. I am opposed to the practice for purely pragmatic reasons. I have no high MORAL opinion on copying, right or wrong. I don't think the record companies are the horrible evil empires so many seem to think they are - they are just trying to run a business and maximize profits (a concept fundamental to the USA) and I'd probably do the same if I was in charge. I also feel (as an individualist) that I should be able to do whatever I want. If that means copying a CD for a friend, so be it - I don't really CARE if it is "legal" or not. But the truth is, if I just make one copy for one friend NOBODY really cares, even if it IS illegal. Unless I am vocal about my imagined "right" to do so, or make a thousand copies for a thousand friends.

I do, however, object strongly to STUPIDITY. Back in the 60s-70s when I sometimes copied LPs to reel tape, I did not write the record companies to inform them of my activity, or encourage others to do likewise. If I am going to engage in an illegal activity I do not alert the media. For example, I refuse to wear a seatbelt, but I do not have a bumper sticker that says "Driver refuses to wear seatbelts" - if I did, I would get a lot of tickets. I think Napster, peer to peer file sharing, CD burning clubs, etc. are stupid ideas that have only served to call national attention to activities people have indulged in quietly (in one form or another) for YEARS.

This situation really ISN"T much different from the psychedelic explosion in the 60s - you have a lot of people doing something on a small scale, and then a bunch of people come along who want everything to move to a much larger scale and are very vocal about it. Suddenly, it's in the news. Then it's a big issue. Next thing you know they are passing a lot of laws and putting people in jail. And that kind of thing is what will happen here. File-sharing and CD burning on a mass scale are a very PUBLIC form of privilege abuse - in this case, of a privilege which never existed in the FIRST place. And as I've said before, the file-sharers and CD burners (especially CLUBS like those listed in the article - why can't these people understand that if they are going to do something like this they should keep it QUIET?) are going to screw it up for everyone.

 

You should wear a seatbelt.

 

I understand what you are saying.

You are saying you don't agree with the law and therefore you are going to violate it. I can't argue with that or I would be a hypocrite. I do wear a seatbelt though, there are too many bad drivers out there!

 

You beat me to it, I was going to post a link to this story from USA Today. Anyhow, my sentiments for Rosen the Dragon Lady: so long, good riddens and I hope the door wacks you on your bum real hard on the way out. Now, quick, somebody change the locks, PLEASE.

 

Mike:

I didnt say that, YOU Did. I merely said you should wear a seatbelt, always. As I do. Always.

By the way, your post was good. I think you are an eloquent writer.

I wonder, tho, how you will feel and what you will post when the RIAA gets what they REALLY want.....laws passed that dont sell us music as they do now, but will sell us only a LISCENSE to listen to it , for a set length of time.

How will you feel when you plunked down 17.99 for the new Britney Spears disk, and 3 months later, it EXPIRES.

In case you didnt know, THATS what the RIAA and the Record Industry wants to do. You wanna hear that Cd again after 6 months?? PAY UP, BUDDY.

Maybe you.

Not me!!

 

Let's give her a BIG send-off! I'm digging a hole right now . . . .

 

I'm not a fan of the RIAA and I do know what they are up to regarding licenses and everything else. I just asked you what fair use rights are being violated in response to your statement. Your response was something about seatbelts that I apparently misunderstood.

 

Copyright laws

Mike,

you make some strong points here, but I disagree with many of them.

Consider this: The word "republic" comes from the Latin language "RES PUBLICA" which means "public affair".

It is natural and normal for anyone to make copies of any media. Why should it be forbidden? Everything that is not expressedly forbidden is allowed. So why do copyright laws exist in the first place?

The answer is, because it was thought that copyright laws would be beneficial for the society as a whole. The idea being that, if copyright was granted, the expectation of exclusive profit from a work would entice artists to create their works of art; the result would be more better art for the public.

Now, it doesn't look like the whole music industry is very much into producing excellent artistic output any more. It's business and it's about making monetary profit, rather than producing outstanding works of art.

So never forget that the reason for law making is the common good, and that the common good also means that everybody (!) can take part in social discourse, and from that point of view there is no reason why it should be forbidden to make copies for your friends or relatives. The music industry even gets compensated for that through flat fees on tapes, recorders, media etc.

 

I didn't write that, it was written by Dwmann. It is a summary of the Fair Use law in the US. It does not explain what is right or wrong. It explains what is legal or illegal under existing law. I was only making one simple point and that was Mikey's misapplication of the law. If you are against a law it is a good idea to know what you are against.

 

Well said Petzi.

 

Sorry, I was confused by the quotation in the text, I thought that was from dwmann and the comments from you.

I am not sure if his legal interpretation is correct, though.

However, the fair use concept is dead in the USA since DMCA was passed. Even when something is allowed, the industry can always prevent you from doing that, because you must not circumvent any copy protection in order to exercise your rights.

Similar legislation is to be passed in Germany and there is currently some strong opposition forming against it.

 

Thank you! It is sometimes a little hard for me to express my thoughts in English. I learned it in school...

 

I love this discussion.

But I really stopped by to post about Hilary Rosen.

I remember seeing an episode of the Letterman show where Dave went out into the audience to do his current events quiz. He picked a woman who identified herself as a flight attendant for a major airline. During the course of her banter with Dave she (inadvertently?) referred to airline passengers as "the enemy." I was astounded by this, not because her characterization seemed inappropriate but because she said out loud what I believe to be the truth about many business people: they dislike their customers.

Hilary Rosen is one such person. I recall her saying something to the effect that there were not enough lawyers to sue everyone she wanted to sue.

Good riddance.

Chris

 

The music industry definitely has a sort of paranoid attitude, they think all customers want to betray them, so they treat the customers accordingly. It is the whole idea behind TCPA and Palladium. They want people to use appliances whose features and possibilities are controlled by the industry rather than the customer, so the customer gets no chance to use the computer, software, and content in any way that is not sanctioned by them.