Hilary Rosen Defeated at Oxford Union 377
yogi writes "Oxford University Students' Union had a debate last Thursday, titled This House believes that 'the free music mentality is a threat to the future of music.'. Ordinarily, not too exciting, but since it is the Oxford Union, they get Hilary Rosen to speak. She lost the debate, and had to have pictures like this taken. Read the writeup at NTK, or a more detailed one here. I especially like the bit where she asked all the file downloaders whether it made them buy more music."
Re:Cool T-shirt on the pic (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.geekstyle.co.uk/ntkmart.cgi#Corrupt
Re:where can I get one of those T-shirts? (Score:5, Informative)
It's linked from one of the articles
Re:Cool T-shirt on the pic (Score:2, Informative)
Oxford Union != Oxford University Student Union (Score:3, Informative)
(which is where the debate was) isn't the same thing as the Oxford University Student Union [ousu.org]. Probably only really of importance to people in Oxford, who know this anyway, though
My two favorite links on the subject. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oxford Union != Oxford University Student Union (Score:4, Informative)
Err why, most Oxford students have zero contact with OUSU. There is not much point to a student union with no facilities to administer.
Hitler credited the Oxford Union with starting World War II.
Incidentally, King and Country has only been passed once since the original debate. Anyone care to guess what the subject matter was?
Oxford Union Debates (I "officiated" once) (Score:5, Informative)
This summer, I had the opportunity to help officate at a debate held at the Oxford University Student Union. This was for an XML course that was developed by a consulting firm that was presented at the University. During the summer, Oxford hosts a significant number of for-profit and non-profit organizations holding conferences, seminars, and the like.
The city of Oxford and the University are stunning. If you've never seen them, you're missing out.
The debating hall is laid out similarly to the House of Commons, which us 'mericans sometimes get a glimpse of on TV.
At the head of the room is the debate chairman, who presides over the debate and makes sure that the rules are followed. To his left and right are the Union treasurer and librarian. Since this wasn't an "official" Oxford Union debate, all three of those roles were held by participants in the XML summer course. I sat to the left of the chairman, and helped decide matters of debate procedure and scope. (Don't laugh; there actually was one matter to review.On the main floor of the debate chamber is the Secretary's desk. The Secretary likewise assures debate procedure is followed and assists the chairman in doing so.
On either side of the Secretary's table are the proposer of the motion, and the opposer. Each of them leads a particular side of the debate.
Around all of them are the seats for the participants, arranged on both the main floor and a balcony surrounding everything.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the debate hall are the doors. On the way in, they look like simple double doors. Only when you are inside can you see that over the right door reads a sign saying "Yeses", and over the left door "Noes." At the end of the debate all participants file out through those doors, their numbers counted by the Secretary as they pass. Then everyone files back in to hear the results read.
The Oxford Union is one of the oldest free speech organizations in the world, and certainly deserving of respect on that basis. The debating hall is a monument to civil society and free speech. The Union is also a completely private institution: a true union of, by, and for Oxford students.
Now, having said all of that, the fact remains that a debate at the Oxford Union is just a debate. It's not a UN Security Council resolution or a Supreme Court judgment. It's just the opinion of a bunch of people who happened to be in the hall at the time as to whether the proposer or the opposer made a better case for their side.
It's all good fun, and much needed at that. But let's not get all worked up about it.
Re:she even voted against her self (Score:1, Informative)
Grow up dude. He missed a word while he was reading the article. Some people do that when they have more important things to dedicate their time to. You got hostile over an innocent mistake. Some people do that when they have a serious inferiority complex.
Who's the assclown?
Re:Debate is getting old (Score:5, Informative)
It was somewhat amusing to see that you not only offer your own music for free download, but also music from several other bands. Something tells me, however, that the Dead Milkmen haven't given you permission to do this.
Now, I can understand wanting to share your own music, but I don't understand why you feel you should be free to share someone else's copyrighted material.
Then pay per download (Score:3, Informative)
So yeah, I'm gonna download songs from the album first before I buy the CD because I'm not paying $15 for 1 (one) song I liked from the radio.
Provided you know which track you want to keep, then download the song on Rhapsody ($1/track) or eMusic ($15/mo), which are legitimate sites that have licensed labels' catalogs.
Re:Debate is getting old (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oxford Union Debates (I "officiated" once) (Score:3, Informative)
Debating Chamber [oxford-union.org]
Re:what was the "different and confusing" set? (Score:3, Informative)
It's worth noting that if you wanted to pick a group of people who are most likely to be in politics or influential media positions in Britain 10 years from now, you would be hard pushed to find a better grouping than 'students who are active in the Oxford debating society'
Re:Courage or stupidity ? (Score:3, Informative)
Balderdash! "Intellectual property" is a very vague term designed to conflate lots mostly unrelated ideas. It can refer to trademarks, patents, copyright, trade secrets, etc. All of them are valid, although all of them can be and often are taken to unnecessary or harmful extremes.
"Intellectual property" is a propaganda term designed to confuse thinking. Not entirelly dissimilar to the "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" bifurcation [texas.net]we've been treated to.
Re:The problems with European-stype representation (Score:3, Informative)
Any government must get support of >50% of parliament, that is of the votes (since parliament is elected almost proportionally to the votes). So 2 or more parties must cooperate in a coalition; in practice it is seldom that one party gets a majority, so you get always coalitions.
This creates centrist policies, because the government partners must give and take, so you get more consensus based government style. In the U.S., while as single parties the republicans and the democrats may be closer than some parties you find in Europe (including the so called populists), any party has to give in so in the end the goverment is more moderate, and less susceptible to sudden changes after new elections.