HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing

from the this-is-how-you-got-into-such-a-mess dept

Over the long weekend, Jay Rosen was kind enough to tweet out a link to my recent "definitive" post highlighting all the problems with SOPA and PIPA. Lots of folks picked up on it, but the one that struck me as the most interesting was from Hilary Rosen, who tweeted back:
The Definitive Post?? Think analog. If a store doesn't sell u what u want, u are justified stealing it?
Hilary Rosen, of course, spent many years as the CEO of the RIAA. And while she hasn't been in that job since 2003, she presided over the Napster lawsuit and the beginnings of the Grokster lawsuit. I believe she left just before the RIAA started suing individuals for file sharing. She also appeared to have second thoughts about the strategy she led while in charge of the RIAA. However, this comment suggests otherwise.

Thinking analog has been the major problem that the RIAA (and MPAA, among others) have had for a long, long time. Rosen's big mistake when she was in charge of the RIAA was that she kept thinking analog. Isn't it time, perhaps, that she started thinking digitally?

But, even more to the point, it's getting ridiculous how many people defending SOPA/PIPA are doing so using this logic. They brush off all of the specific concerns, the highlights of problematic language, and they conclude "why are you justifying theft?" Of course, that's ridiculous. Beyond the fact that "theft" and "infringement" are very different (don't get me started), nothing in anyone's complaints about SOPA or PIPA have anything to do with "justifying" infringement. In fact, in the post that was being discussed, we clearly noted that infringement is a problem. We just disagree that PIPA and SOPA are reasonably, or even effective, solutions.

It's really quite ridiculous to lay out in such great detail all of the problems of the bill, only to have someone -- and someone who is partially responsible for the mess the record labels are in today -- brush off the entire thing by falsely stating that we're "justifying stealing." Unfortunately, this kind of "debate" is all too common. It seems that almost no one is interested in actually discussing the problems of the bill. They just insist that if you highlight problems in the bill you're trying to justify something.

Filed Under: copyright, hilary rosen, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: riaa

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 28 Nov 2011 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Nah, Mike, you're brushing aside the problem of infringement,

    @"Rikuo": Thanks for being a repeating idiot. You give me opportunity to explain your fixation on $100M movie and to point out again how Mike reckons things in his fantasy land.

    Why I repeat the phrase "sunk (or fixed) costs":

    It's copy/pasted from Mike's piece having the movie example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml

    He writes that a movie cost $100 million to make -- after mentioning this impressive figure, he then sets it aside as "sunk (or fixed) costs" -- and makes market conditions a fictional "perfectly competitive" so that he can "prove" marginal costs are the only relevant factor for distributing movies.

    My synopsis omits nothing: his example is stark once some litter is removed. He's already pulled the trick necessary to be "right". Just read down to where he mentions and dismisses "sunk (or fixed) costs". -- STOP right there and ask how those could possibly be ignored... Only answer Mike gives is because he /says/ so. [When pressed by me later (in next link), Mike tries the line that "sunk (or fixed) costs" don't matter for /pricing/, but that's merely /continuing/ to claim having a (wanted and already promoted) movie in hand for only distribution costs.]

    In reality, one would only sort of ignore "sunk (or fixed) costs" IF they'd long since been recovered, and if old method worked for that, who'd be fooling around with new methods? His whole thesis falls apart at the premises.

    Don't forget that Mike supposedly has a degree in economics. I hold that kids running a lemonade stand know better. This isn't a slip-up.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.