It's Congress VS. The RIAA! Outcome Uncertain.
 

In a letter to the RIAA, U.S. Representative Rick Boucher asks Hilary Rosen “What's up with all this copy-guard stuff, anyway”. Or words to that effect. He actually says “I am particularly concerned that some of these technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home recording using recorders and media covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA).” And who isn't, I ask? Full letter here.

As to Hilary's response, it was “Full and detailed” (long winded and pompous?). The entire 8 pager is available as a PDF doc, here . Page five goes to the heart of her argument.

- js.

Strange?
 

Quote... PDF doc, here . Page five goes to the heart of her argument.

Thats funny Js, I got error 404 page not found?

wonder if they turned it off?

Snark.. :er:

sorrry snark. it still loads over here (try right clicking and save as) but i'll be happy to email you the pdf.:) it's 375K.

- js.

We learn something NEW?
 

I didn't even know you could do that to a link.... thanks Js..

Unfortunately, even that did not work, but it took longer to fail?

:f: Snark..

Tried to post the error screen but it screwed up?

Thanks for beedles?

thanks for the becker! check your mail.

- js.

It sounds like Rosen wants to change the rules of the game now that she's losing. She says, "The AHRA was a legislative compromise reached years before the development of peer-to-peer systems and the resultant massive infringments they facilitate." It's the classic 'they wont obey our laws so neither will we' argument. What's worse is she thinks she is justified in doing so simply becuse she made those rules in the first place.

I say that if she won't hold up her end of the bargain then I shouldn't have to pay royalties on CD burners. "Nothing in the AHRA affirmatively requires that a CD be copiable, let alone recordable in any particular device." Well that responsibility was certainly implied, otherwise the AHRA wouldn't really be the compromise she suggests it was.

"Music sales are already suffering from the impact, with unit sales down throughout the world, record sales decreased by more than 10% in 2001." I would suggest that the decline in sales is in fact consumer backlash against the industry's attitude toward it's consumer base. Perhaps Rosen thinks that people who download songs never buy CD's or that people save their money for CD-R's instead of albums. Either way she would be completly mistaken and people resent that kind of prejudice. It's dificult to be enthusiastic about paying $15.00 for a condescending lecture about copyright law when all you really want is a music CD. Their use of CD copy protection suggeste they think of us a undisciplined children and it's very insulting. Given their patronizing attitude I'm not at all surprised that sales are down.

And I couldn't care less. This is capitalism and if you think you need more money then it's up to you to find a creativce way to do it. I would call CD copy protection uncreative at best. Rosen has her lawyers in the courts, her lobbyists in congress, her executives at the heads of each of the record companies, and her technicians making copy protected CD's and she thinks she's covered all the angles. That kind of power brokering does make for a good business model as long as the consumers don't know what's going on. Bullying consumers has always been bad for business. The combination of our growing suspicion of Rosen's manipulative tactics and her appearent distain for the buying public have resulted in a shrinking profit margin.

But as long as the spector of world wide piracy looms in the air Rosen will have an excuse for her bad business practices. P2p is nothing more than a scapegoat to distract the judges and lawmakers. As marginal as p2p's effect is on the industry, Rosen will say that it is a serious problem as long as it is considered unlawful, so she believes that the industry's internal problems are small.