RIAA or RMDI?
p2p news view / p2pnet: We recently ran an item which had Hilary Rosen energetically trying to escape from the very idea that she may have had anything to do with students being sued by the Big Four Organized Music cartel’s RIAA, which she used to run.
“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,” she said in The Huffington Post. “There were good arguments on both sides and the staff at the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) 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.”
But as an anonymous p2pnet reader says in a comment post, “the RIAA’s ‘constituency’ are the corporate executives and the stockholders of the conglomerates that own the major labels, and DEFINITELY NOT, REPEAT NOT, the creative people, such as songwriters, performance artists, recording engineers, acoustical engineers, etc., who actually create the works the RIAA’s ‘constituency’ distributes.
“The RIAA’s name can now be considered misleading. It really doesn’t represent the ‘Recording Industry’ as the actual ‘recording’ is now almost exclusively performed by a myriad of smaller companies and individuals working on a contract, or per project basis, who are not employees are the major labels. The major labels should be referred to as the ‘Recorded Music Distributing Industry.’
“As for Ms Rosen, she’s being a bit disingenuous in attempting to distance herself from the debacle of lawsuits against dead people, grandmothers who have never touched a computer, 12 year olds, computer-illiterate parents, etc. Given the way corporate organizations work, there are many months (or years) of planning before anything is actually implemented.
“She could have easily put a stop to this at the very outset by setting a boundary that they were not going to sue individuals who were not attempting to profit from filesharing.
“However, it’s hardly unusual that a group of lawyers (which is the predominant occupation comprising the upper echelons of the RIAA’s staff, the “thoughtful and good people” Ms. Rosen referred to) decided to address a ‘problem’ (that had a wide range of solutions) with lawsuits.
“I would venture to guess that if the RIAA senior staff were MBAs instead of lawyers, they would have developed new business models and distribution methods.”
Digg this story.
escape – RIAA’s Rosen on student lawsuits, June 4, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
NOTE: p2pnet is being sued by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, ceo of p2p application Kazaa. “The suit is a little odd, since P2PNet.net is a champion of peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is the same business that Kazaa is in,” says The Globe & Mail. If you’d like to help p2pnet, or find out more, please go here.
June 7th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
I wonder what Our forefathers would be thinking if they knew that the judicial systemwas being used and minipulated for corporate profits instead of actual justice.
Rick
June 8th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Strange… She is not the first *AA executive to try and distanciate herself from her firm’s politics AFTER she has left it. Two hypothesis:
- as I read elsewhere, these people “leave their brain” and the rest at the entrance and morph into corporate drones while they’re inside. But one question: if the CEO doesn’t think anymore, who is doing the thinking (hint hint!!!)
- this is just another self promotional piece from a person who has just started a business as a consultant and tries to sell herself as a provider of “new” and “fresh” ideas.
In any case, I’m not starting to worship -or even trust- her anytime soon. Just another conscience-free moneymaker.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
The RIAA, CRIAA etc. are owned by the big four, and are therefore an extension of a corporation (grouped together kind of like a monopoly or interestingly enough, how the mob has been depicted over the years).
The motivation of these ‘trade groups’ or whatever guise they go under is pure and simple economics and they can be counted on to do one thing and one thing only: whatever is in the best interest of their stock holders.
They cannot be expected or even thought of doing what is best for their ’suppliers’ (that would be the artists/creators for those slow people out there) and for their ‘consumers’ (damn I miss being a customer, guess that’s why I don’t ‘consume’ their ‘product’).
They are NOT in the business of looking after any country’s, regions, ethnic groups (etc.) heritage…they’re only concern is the bottom line.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
If this organization were to become the “RMDI” it would take away the “moral high-ground” so they could no longer sanctimoniously assert that they were ‘protecting’ the creative artists that the horrible, criminal, thieving, larcenous, no-good, dastardly, despicable, dirty, rotten pirates (who are very, very bad people, incidentally) were ’stealing’ from.
Somehow, the announcement (delivered in a holier-than-thou demeanor) that, “We’re just trying to protect our constituent stockholders’ dividends and share value.” would likely draw anything from a subtle snicker to uncontrollable hysterical laughter that results in loss of bladder control.