When will RIAA's Rosen respond to Otto's love note?
As the slime grows
Stern response It has been more than a week since I asked former RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) Chairman Hilary Rosen out on a date. She has yet to respond.
This makes me wonder if The Register isn't ALL the publication management claimed it to be. My words are precious, and I'll not send them into a vacuum. The delivery, however, this week of a case of Jack Daniels from Vulture Central has bought at least three weeks more of columns and a promise to complain as little as possible.
So, here's a toast to Hilary. May you get back to me as quickly as possible, so that we can continue life's journey together. Oh, what a blessed event our love would be.
Now, on to the mailbag.
Maybe I'm just thick, but your article "How Hilary Rosen learned to stop suing and hate Apple's iPod " seems to be about same article that was featured in an earlier Reg article by Ashlee Vance in Chicago titled "Former RIAA Chief goes after Apple's 'Anti-consumer' CEO".
The part that makes me wonder if I am thick is that Ashlee's article basically says it's a big hoax, while your article seems to take the source article as true blue.
A number of you wrote in asking the same question. Hopeless dolts? Not exactly.
Mrs. Vance has a tendency to prattle on, and this was such an occasion. Be weary of such people with Red, Red leanings.
Rosen bashes Apple's lock on the iPod/iTunes pair because anything that frees up consumers' ability to legally download songs from any site and put them their iPod is actually in the best interests of the recording industry and NOT the consumer. If suddenly Apple has to compete with every other store on its own platform to gain/keep market share, that changes the balance of power - Apple would have to accept harsher, more expensive, more restrictive terms with RIAA in order to continue to produce the best, most attactive catalogue.
As it stands now, Apple is in a position to dictate terms because it has the most successful strategy and the most successful marketing and the most successful product. RIAA wants to jack up the price per song. Apple says no. Apple decides.
If Apple opens up the iPod to play wma, suddenly it places itself on the same playing field as every other online music store. Apple would no longer be in a position to dictate terms to RIAA.
What Rosen is doing is a brilliant tactic to undermine Apple's strength and return control of the online music industry to the RIAA. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with opening up the market for the benefit of the consumer. Absolutely nothing.
um...wtf? Rosen is talking about how you cant put music from 3rd party stores on your iPod? WTF?!? allofmp3.com sells AAC files along with MP3s. Im sure there are other stores as well. I would think someone in her position would know something like this.
. and she's talking out of her tush. Er - the iPod plays MP3 files. You can get very good, unsigned bands MP3s off t'internet, and I presume other sites will sell MP3s. If their songs are encrypted with proprietary encryption, blaming Apple is missing the point.
Personally, DRM makes criminals of us all. If I lend a book to a friend, no one is going to sue me. If I try and use music I've bought, all sorts of restrictions are imposed on me.
I don't believe in stealing music, but if you've paid for it, it should be yours.
Of course, as you say, you can just play it on your Mac/PC and re-record it...
Came looking for BOFH and got this.
It was bad enough when he first started trolling and you'd convinced yourselves it was journalism; but now, it's got so dull I couldn't even be arsed to skim-read to the end.
Please, put this man out of my misery. If you have any love for humanity, someone, quietly pay him off.
I was under the impression that the article Mr. Stern is lauding had already been debunked as satire.
Furthermore, I object to anyone or any organization telling *me* how to act in a moral manner. The (probably mythical) Institute for Technological Values can go pound sand - I, and I alone, am the maintainer of my moral compass, and I'll thank the (also possibly-mythical) Mr. Stern to keep his mind on his own moral issues, and bugger off.
Preferably off of El Reg, altogether, in fact. His articles don't "make me think;" they make me cruise to another Web site, with less preaching and more geek-factor value.
Hliary can buy any CD and put the songs directly on her iPod. Don't buy from the Apple Store. The End.
Great article Otto. I have to say that things like this make me so pissed off that they're not even funny. Being who she is, and what she's done, we should all serve her words to her, along with her tongue...
You're welcome, Sergio.
"This remarkable, pro-consumer revelation appeared in the most public and populist theatre possible - the new Huffington Post."
Pro-consumer?? I believe you have it backwards, Otto.
Please try to think further into the future.
I'm not sure I fully understood the complete satiric meaning of your piece on Hilary Rosen. It seemed to be either "the fact that she is a lesbian makes me want to pull myself" or, "I haven't had a root since my wife died and I now want to root Hilary Rosen, but will pull myself in the meantime."
These are both pretty groundbreaking concepts in the history of computer journalism, but since they seem to have very little to do with computers or indeed even with any form of journalism that has ever had any form of respect afforded it, I was wondering whether I had missed some tiny saving grace within the article. Was it possible that some germ of vilification masquerading as satire had escaped me? I read it again.
I couldn't find anything.
I think the fact that I didn't even think about smiling once during the entire article points to the fact that it is not even slightly funny.The fact that reading it made me feel as if I had become covered in a thin coating of slime points me to the conclusion that in this attempt at satire your target was yourself, and your sad preconceptions.
I congratulate you on this success, however pyrrhic.
Please note: it is the 21st Century and we are all grown ups. The fact that Hilary Rosen prefers to sleep with women is about as relevant to her views on online music and the iPod as her choice of breakfast cereal. Please drop the comments about her (or anyone else's) sexuality and lets stick to the technology in future.
Was this article a farce?
There's the weird "homicidal maniac vs. pro-life" contrast which makes absolutely no sense (but is funny in a satirical way), the bizarre, inappropriate gay-bashing, the cultish, medeival references to sin and devils, the maudlin appeal to Rosen as a lover/wife replacement, the hilarious "Institute for Technological Values" affiliation (Can this be an actual place? Does technology actually have values?), and a few more you can probably find yourself.
Please let me know whether I've read this correctly (as satire); I honestly can't tell. The author seems like he'd be more at home throwing a Klan rally at a retirement center than writing for a technology site such as The Register... it brings to mind the work of Hermann Zweibel, that eminent publisher of The Onion.
Eliot Van Buskirk
God bless you, sir. You are the Dagon of my idolatry. I hope you and Ms. Rosen are very happy together.
Gary E. Walker
Oh good god we wouldn't want to continue to let Apple throw it's weight around with the music industry! They have been soooooo abusive so far. I mean they have given in to all of the demands of the evil labels like only selling whole albums...wait no they didn't cave on that. Well but what about pay for placement on their site....umm no they have refused that. But when the labels demanded that the prices go up for singles they.....umm I know there was something evil the did. Oh ya! they gave all of those sweetheart deals to the big labels but screwed over the ind....oh ya, same deal for all.....hmmmm?
Well, OK so Apple is not pure evil but they do only support 1 form of DRM unlike all of those other players out there that support.....um one form of DRM? Sure, only one form but it is an OPEN STANDARDS BASED DRM controlled by a consortium of.......that's right it is a DRM controlled by Microsoft.
Ok so Apple is not pure evil and WMA is not a more open standard but it is backed by a company with a history of level handed dealings and fare play (punny yes?). Ether that or it is a company that has been convicted of dirty dealing and unfair business practices.
Seriously! I know the above does not excuse Apple for not licensing FairPlay (well except for that deal with Motorola). But can we all just get some perspective here? Apple went out on a limb to help create this industry. They have a great deal invested in it and they deserve to reap some reward before they hand over the keys to everyone else. We are talking about a small percentage of the over all music sales that Apple is monopolizing and that they have controlled for what? A year+ ( I know iTMS has been around for 2 years but until the first year nobody really took notice)
Don't expect Apple to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for each iPod sold any time soon. They may partner with some more hardware providers as well as possibly some Online music sales sites (Sony any one?). But the truth of the matter is that people who have been "locked into" the iPod iTMS life are by and large happy and many of us hope Apple keeps an upper hand for awhile longer to continue to push the music industry in the right direction.
If you want to get angry, start writing hate mail to the phone companies for banning the FairPlay phones from Motorola and Apple so they can force feed the consumer $3 ring tones!
You ever thing that Hilary is still doing the Labels dirty work and they are just afraid that Apple is getting too much of an upper hand on them?
Just some thoughts.