Media Monopoly: Thomas Edison to Hillary Rosen

An anonymous reader writes "George Ziemann has posted two excellent articles that explore the early days of the recording and music industry, how their attempts to monopolize their respective mediums in the past failed, and how their attempts to do so strangely mirror those presently being undertaken by contemporary media conglomerates to control digital distribution over the Net. Seems the two industries back at the turn of the century tried to pool their patents to block out competition like the RIAA and the big media companies today pool their copyrights. The first article "The Dawn of Recorded Music and the First Pirates" focuses on early collusion in the phonograph industry. The second "Music, Movies and Monopoly" on Thomas Edison's failed attempts to restrain fair trade in the two new media he gave commercial rise to."

Comments

It's time they take notes on history.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who don't learn by history are doomed to repeat it. Why oh why don't they freakin' learn?

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Those who don't learn by history are doomed to repeat it. Why oh why don't they freakin' learn?

Because History class in high-school is largely a pack of feel-good lies and, besides, they rarely get much past the civil war anyways.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[kbonin]

They have learned that:

1. There's a sufficiently long interval between when a monopoly begins flexing its control and when it is either stopped by antitrust law or made irrelevant that an obscenely large amount of money can be made, and

2. Changes in law have reduced penalties in most cases to forms like "rebate coupons", allowing the guilty to effectively keep all the proceeds.

Its like Microsoft - technically they're just playing the system, and don't forget that the US has the best government money can buy...

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" --George Santayana

There was a sign that said the same thing over Jim Jones' corpse in Jonestown.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[wirelessbuzzers]

Those who don't learn by history are doomed to repeat it. ...And those who do learn by it are doomed to see it coming.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[einTier]

Isn't that the truth. In the whole of my history classes, I got to World War II only once -- and that was in college. Only one of the other classes made it to the 1900's.

On top of that, anything truly interesting (read controversial) was simply glossed over -- with the exception of slavery, where I was told that I was responsible today for the sins of my great, great, great grandfather 150 years ago. I shouldn't have to say that he wasn't even in America, and the first of my ancestry to set foot in America married a Native American.

History isn't about learning, if it ever was. It's all about indoctrination.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[JamesOfTheDesert]

Those who don't learn by history are doomed to repeat it.

Well, look on the bright side: repeating history will be forbidden unless you own the copyright on it.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[bsharitt]

If your ancestor married a native american, would the native american also be an ancestor, thus your ancestors would hae been here longer.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[swankypimp]

I was a history major and I think the curriculum is mostly fine the way it is. In order to intelligently discuss why things happened, you first needs to know what happened. While analyzing, say, the Spanish American War, you need to know what events happened in what order and who was involved. Also, a basic, simplistic version of why things happened. This is what grade school and freshman / sophomore highschool history is for. Once you know the facts of the situation, you can begin examining those facts in the light of cultural development, economic considerations, perceived political consequences, attitudes of the day, etc. (upper-level highschool and college).

The problem is that normal (i.e. not honors level) junior and senior year history classes are often run by hardened, cynical teachers who want to get through the day with as little trouble as possible. (A lot of this is due to a lack of discpiline both in home and at the schools.) Rather than exerting a ton of effort to get their students to settle down, think on a topic, and discuss it intelligently, it is easier to have them read chapter seven and do the review questions.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Funksaw]

I'm lucky - my high school didn't "gloss over" history, and I loved it so much I got a B.A. in History from Rutgers.

I mean, this is all nothing new. I mean, I can cite some examples that predate Thomas Edison - the Industrial Revolution in America was pretty much kicked off by Samuel Slater - who, risking being killed by the British as a spy, memorized the specifications for building a factory, traveled to America, and recreated the British factory in America. Yeah. That's right. He was a "pirate."

And what happened? America became the industrial superpower of the world. The Telephone, the world's first mass-produced car... America went from a backwoods hick state to *the* superpower.

And it's happening again.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, those who do study history are doomed to be dismissed as doomsaying Cassandras.

-- Funksaw

That's not much better, though, since no one listens to the history majors anyway.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[johnnyb]

If you don't get into examining the facts and synthesizing until upper-level high-school, you are far behind where you should be.

We should be reading _source_ documents in gradeschoool (although translated).

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Anonymous Coward]

History isn't about learning, if it ever was. It's all about indoctrination.

Change "History" to "Public Education" to obtain a more complete statement of the situation.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I was a history major and I think the curriculum is mostly fine the way it is. In order to intelligently discuss why things happened, you first needs to know what happened.

Well, my gripe is with highschool-level History, in that it largely fails to tell you about important things that happened, or distorts the facts (and debate) out of all sensibility.

Once you know the facts of the situation, you can begin examining those facts in the light of cultural development, economic considerations, perceived political consequences, attitudes of the day, etc. (upper-level highschool and college).

Not if you use one of the standard highschool history textbooks. They typically don't tell you all of what happened, nor do they give you any idea of the general mileu of any given time period. They just present a bunch of watered down facts with the barest of explanation.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If your ancestor married a native american, would the native american also be an ancestor, thus your ancestors would hae been here longer.

Betcha that this is just a manifestation of the perception of Indians as 'other' - he's identifying with his European ancestors and naming the first ancestor to show up in this country. It's understandable in light of the way we completely erased the bulk of the indians' heritage.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[einTier]

I identify with my European ancestry because my background is almost entirely that, with the notable exception of the aforementioned grandmother. My last name is European (Irish), and comes from the aformentioned grandfather.

I find it a bit dishonest to say I'm a native american when I look nothing like a native american, I don't have a native american name, and no one in my family practices any kind of NA traditions. I didn't even claim it for scholarship applications, though I was highly encouraged to do so.

Also, I can trace my ancestry back to Ireland and England, but I can't trace my native american grandmother past her involvement with my grandfather.

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[perlchild]

There is nothing wrong about a society telling its young what allows the society to survive, what's wrong is making it sound like they're learning history...
Methinks renaming history classes something else, perhaps "Americana" would probably be more honest, intellectually, at least in NA...

Re:It's time they take notes on history.

[Safety Cap]

~ memorized the specifications for building a factory ~.

"Wood?" "Check."

"Lamps?" "Check."

"Doors?" "Check."

"Office?" "Check."

"Machinery?" "Check."

"Workers?" "Check."

"Okay, looks like we got everything. Fire it up, Wilson!" (sound of factory starting, machinery, hammering, etc.)

- fade to black -

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Study aside, history is known to repeat itself due to one or more factors so why bother to study?

phonograph industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read that as Pornography Industry?

Re:phonograph industry

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:phonograph industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you have. Most peoply only read the first letter and make the remaining up in the mind.

Re:phonograph industry

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just you, loser-boy. Found a girlfriend yet?
I thought not.

Ted Turner's opinion

[fatcat1111]

Here's Ted Turner's letter voicing opposition (!) to increased media consolidation.

Re:Ted Turner's opinion

[SirDaShadow]

The only reason I can see him opposed to this, is the fact that he was "left out" of consolidation and he is hurting big time.

Re:Ted Turner's opinion

[SirDaShadow]

Media Consolidation
wasn't this already posted? :)

Re:Ted Turner's opinion

[LMariachi]

Left out? Hardly. More like he's an experienced victim of it: Turner Entertainment has been part of Time Warner for going on seven years now, although Ted Turner himself resigned as vice chairman at the beginning of this year after AOLTW posted the biggest corporate loss in history (98.7 billion dollars.)

Re:Ted Turner's opinion

[data1]

Do his motives really matter if they serve the interests of the public?
If a man can enrich himself while serving a legitimate need, what is the harm in that? I think his paper and his ideas deserve a read.

Games Mafia Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read that as Games Mafia Monopoly?

What else is new?

[SamBC]

Isn't it both a matter of study and anecdotal evidence that corporations (and sometimes individuals) generally try and stifle competition in a new industry, to their ultimate disadvantage?

Re:What else is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it both a matter of study and anecdotal evidence that corporations (and sometimes individuals) generally try and stifle competition in a new industry, to their ultimate disadvantage?

Amusing commentary on this point, courtesy of Schlock Mercenary:

Here and here.

The only reason they failed

[Freston Youseff]

is that they tried to "dominate" a tangible market.

Re:Oh yea biatches

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that could be a new slashdot feature. Just delete the first 20 or so comments in every thread.

RTFA Please?

[Anonymous Coward]

The articles are short and sweet, so please take the time to read them.

Re:RTFA Please?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here arnt you?

Con Edison

[h00pla]

Gives new meaning to that term, doesn't it

Re:Con Edison

[Mooncaller]

Edison was a true pioneer. He took FUD to new hights. He used paten portfolios to styfle competion in ways never dreamed of by his predicesors. He accuired the ownership of patens in very unsavory ways. He was one of the first to enslave inventors (read developers). Between him and Standard Oil, they wrote the book on monopolistic tyrany. Bill Gates is just extending the techniques pioneered by Edison.

Re:Con Edison

[Snork Asaurus]

Edison was a true pioneer. He took FUD to new hights. He used paten portfolios to styfle competion in ways never dreamed of by his predicesors. He accuired the ownership of patens in very unsavory ways. He was one of the first to enslave inventors (read developers). Between him and Standard Oil, they wrote the book on monopolistic tyrany. Bill Gates is just extending the techniques pioneered by Edison.

Please insert obligatory "Miscrosoft never does anything original" comment here.

Re:Con Edison

[decaf_dude]

True, fire which burned down Tesla's lab was attributed to Edison even though nothing was ever proven.

Re:Con Edison

[Anonymous Coward]

Please insert obligatory "Miscrosoft never does anything original" comment here.

A Microsoft fanboy jumping in first is only slightly more lame. If you got a point to make, make it or leave, fanboy.

Re:Con Edison

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I'm quite the opposite, as anyone who has read my posts for a while would know. Obviously, subtlety in humor is not your thing or you would get the fact that the joke is made by suggesting the making of the joke. I do compliment you on your knee-jerk demonstration of your stupidity, though. You prove that there are simplistic lame-ass dopes on the anti-Microsoft side as well as pro.

Then again, I'm guessing from your child-like use language that you haven't reached your teens yet, so you are forgiven in the way that all children are for saying stupid things.

Re:Con Edison

[unitron]

"True, fire which burned down Tesla's lab was attributed to Edison even though nothing was ever proven."

As ready as I maight be to believe most any old bad thing about Edison, I'm inclined to doubt this one. The stuff Tesla worked with was probably more than capable of starting a fire with the least bit of carelessness or inattention and, having been involved in at least one fire himself, I suspect Edison would have hesitated to use that particular dirty trick against anyone else.

Re:Con Edison

[maxpublic]

Hey! You're forgetting Microsoft Bob!

Max

Re:Con Edison

[whereiswaldo]

Between [Edison] and Standard Oil, they wrote the book on monopolistic tyrany.

That's funny, when I learned about Thomas Edison in school they never told me he was an asshole.

I wonder if Bill Gates' illegal activities will be downplayed 100 years from now. I'd bet on Yes.

Ted Turner

[Anonymous Coward]

is my father.

--
Dr. Nightmare
Attorney at Law

Fast forward or fast rewind?

[Anonymous Coward]

One century later, and its still the same song and dance act. Sigh.

Re:Fast forward or fast rewind?

[Snork Asaurus]

One century later, and its still the same song and dance act.

And the copyright on that song expired. The RIAA would like to make sure that never happens again.

What Media Monopoly?

[Pave Low]

Doesn't look like the media is owned or controlled by any one group to me.

This "big media monopoly" is such a myth. The networks, newspapers, internet sites compete viciously against each other.

I see plenty of choices on tv, radio, and the Internet than ever before.

This media monopoly is just another bogeyman the leftists have made up as part of their "all big corporations are evil" campaign.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[GMontag]

You are exactly right. The group of "monopolies" that many folk keep shouting about own around 10-25% of the TV stations and about 10% of the radio stations are owned by the "radio monopoly" of a few firms. Yet something like 80% of the viewers watch/listen to them.

The point being, these "monopolies" do not own a majority of stations/channels/satellite transponders, no one entity is being called a "monopoly" or anything of the sort. The complaint is that severla large, successful firms, with a tiny MINORITY of stations are drawing the majority of audience. Sounds more like competition to me.

I am sure my numbers might be off a bit, as I have been hearing and reading of this non-issue for months and really don't feel like digging up links anybody interested enough can find on their own.

Also, it was funny in another post someone quoting Ted Turner as being "against" the new rules when he controls so many media companies. Mr. consolidation is complaining of consolidation.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[MourningBlade]

This "big media monopoly" is such a myth. The networks, newspapers, internet sites compete viciously against each other

Perhaps it is.

In this case, the article is discussing the issues that can result from a group that pools its patents, creating a "virtual monopoly" - more like an oligopoly, but not really.

As to the myth of the "big media monopoly", I believe the "monopoly" is more of a statement of frustration regarding the fact that most people get their news from organizations that toe one of two party lines: you have the somewhere-in-the-socialist-field CNN, NYT and company. Then you have the somewhere-in-the-authoritarian-field FoxNews, and company.

This is probably because most people only accept the first story they hear regarding an issue that does not immediately contradict their preconceptions, and if they hear anything else to the contrary, it's filed under B for Bullshit.

This leads to homogenous news organizations.

Also, there are about two major cliques in the news media, and journalists seek approval from one of them. This results in a dichotomous but homogenous sub-culture that pervades news organizations. This culture picks who gets to be a reporter, and who doesn't.

So, is the "media monopoly" a myth? Yes. There is no one select group that controls and commands the news media. But there certainly is a behavioral system that regulates the news media.

To clarify what I mean by this, and to show how meaningless yet meaningful the conclusion is, let me compare this situation to Asshole Drivers(tm).

Asshole Drivers are everywhere. They seem to be a bit different from city to city, but they are everywhere. They cut you off, they slow down traffic because they refuse to merge, they speed up to keep you from merging. We know them by sight.

What causes there to be so many of them? Hard to say, but I think it's pretty easy to say that a combination of environment and human nature combines to create the self-centered bastards. I don't think they are employed to be that way by a business, nor do I believe that it is a form of religious worship (though some days I have my doubts....).

If this is true, then Asshole Drivers are not created or controlled by a monopoly, but there certainly is a behavioral system that produces them.

Now, I'll make this last part quick. Your comment about "I see plenty of choices on tv, radio, and the Internet than ever before."

Yes, they do compete, but the movie and music companies (who are the ones at issue here) not only compete with one another, but they gang up to destroy smaller companies. You can do that without being controlled by one person or board of directors.

There are numerous cases (that I wish I had links to so that I could cite them) showing collusion amongst RIAA and MPAA members to oust independents. Strong-arming distribution companies, prevention of advertisement from stores that wish to keep their "special deals." Etc, etc, etc.

Now, having said all this, let me tell you that I do not believe "all big corporations are evil." I believe that most problems with society right now come about because entities are not equal before the law and law-makers. I do not know how to solve these problems, but I do know they are a problem, and I'd like to hear solutions.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[ShieldW0lf]

Sounds like he is of the opinion that he did what he did because his competitors did, and if he hadn't done them, he would have gone out of business. Now he sees that the FCC is going to allow his competitors to do things he thinks are against the public interest, requiring him to do them also or go out of business. Basically, he is riding the tiger, and he doesn't want the FCC to give the tiger any more steroids.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[Mooncaller]

Your comment is irrelevant. Currently there are five or six orginizations that represents well over half the world audience. Things are a bit worse inb the US and Europe. These organizations are in the same buisness and have the same gouls. The intense competion, especialy between the smaller outfits against the behemoths, actualy does more to limit choice. These factors result in most media ( waited against size of audience) generating the same distortions of fact.

Examples: The day Pitbulls around the US went crazy and started killing people. They did this for about six months, with almost daily incidences. Then one day, they just stopped.

The summer of shark attacks that took place during a year with lower then average shark incidents.

I have to go. I'll write more examples later.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[Pave Low]

let's see, everybody here at least concedes my original point, that there is no one man/group behind the curtain of the "media", but then procede to change the subject to "well this small group controls most of it". This may be true in the sense that most people get their information from only a few sources, but I think you people have it completely backwards thinking they control us.

Did Fox News somehow hypnotized people to watch them? No, people liked what they saw and switched from CNN, MSNBC, or whatever. Look at your local magazine rack..who's fault is it that the Nation or the Socialist News aren't the bestsellers?

BTW, this moderation by agreement is priceless.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[jc42]

Part of the problem is that people use the word "monopoly", which can be trivially debunked by showing that there are two companies. The correct term is "oligopoly".

When you have N companies that are in cahoots and dividing up the market or locking out independents, it can be just as bad as a monopoly. But when you use the term "monopoly" you are inviting people to pooh-pooh the problem by picking on your poorly chosen word.

If all you can hear when you twiddle your dial is N stations playing the same commercial schock music and a couple of identical-sounding right-wing talk shows, you have a problem. The fact that there are two or three companies who own them all doesn't mean that there's competition. It just means that they are cooperating to eliminate real competition and lock out what they've decided you don't need to hear.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[trezor]

So I guess these people are not the ones pushing DMCAs down our throat, not the ones pushing forward requiring that there be only DRM-consumer electronics, not the ones who intensionally limits global trade by putting regional codes on DVDs and making it a crime to bypass them and not at all the ones who by law try to inhibit technological development.

They are obviously nowhere near controlling us. I'm sorry. I was wrong.

Re:What Media Monopoly?

[John3]

Also, it was funny in another post someone quoting Ted Turner as being "against" the new rules when he controls so many media companies. Mr. consolidation is complaining of consolidation.

He owned one televison station (WTCG, channel 17 in Atlanta) which became a Superstation (WTBS) through distribution on cable networks that he did not own. He owned one news station (CNN) that became a national/internation news station because it was distributed through systems that he did not own. Turner, although rich, was at the mercy of Time/Warner, Cablevision, etc. as they controlled the distribution network. He never controlled the media distribution, and in fact he was bought out by the media conglomerates. Probably the only irony here is that he's complaining even though he made tons of money by selling to the very folks he is complaining about.

Against the flow. Fair and balanced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News Channel

Enough said.

A Convo

[CptChipJew]

Thomas Edison: Hillary, you need to lose weight seriously. My left ear is deaf and I can still hear the walls move when you walk.

Hillary: }=(

Media Monopoly ...

[BabyDave]

Why don't we get Parker Brothers/Hasbro/whoever to make a "Media Monopoly(TM)" - instead of streets, you buy towns/cities, with houses representing newspapers, radio stations etc, and a hotel being a TV station or something. We could have Chance cards along the lines of "A new file-sharing app is launched. Lose $200,000,000" or "The American legal system develops collective insanity and passes the DMCA. Collect $5 billion", "The IRS finds out about the $10 billion stuffed down the back of the CEO's sofa, go directly to jail" etc etc.

Come on guys! If we put our heads together, we could probably come up with decent analogies for the utilities, stations, free parking etc, then launch the game in a blaze of publicity, giving the profits (excessive optimism, probably ...) to the EFF or something.

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[Juanvaldes]

...then immediately get sued by Hasbro, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[csnydermvpsoft]

Actually, Hasbro lost their many of their rights to the Monopoly copyright after a lengthy court battle. That's why there are so many Monopoly-esque games in existance that aren't licensed by Hasbro.

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[ShieldW0lf]

Just make one. No one owns Monopoly the rules or Monopoly the name, just the icons and imagery.

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[willum448]

I had always thought they had a monopoly on Monopoly...

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[Realistic_Dragon]

Perhaps it would be more pertinant to have them purchase politicans instead of properties? Park Lane would become the president and Old Kent Road would become the junior congressman from Idaho :o)

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[Nix0n]

Park Lane would become the president and Old Kent Road would become the junior congressman from Idaho

Uh, do you mean "Boardwalk" and "Baltic Avenue", respectively, or have you just never played a game of Monopoly while sober ?

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's British you insensitive clod!!

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[gmhowell]

Actually, you kinda put the cart before the horse. The reason they lost the case is that there always were other Monopoly-esque games in existence. Guess it's an unbroken circle kinda thing.

Re:Media Monopoly ...

[87C751]

Why don't we get Parker Brothers/Hasbro/whoever to make a "Media Monopoly(TM)"

Why not just make your own?

Starr-Gennett

[jwilcox154]

Seems the two industries back at the turn of the century tried to pool their patents to block out competition like the RIAA and the big media companies today pool their copyrights.

Because of those patents, Starr-Gennett "along with several other companies" were sued in the early Nineteen-Twenties, which the the American Graphophone Company (Columbia) and the Victor Talking Machine Co. Lost.

The Second Circuit Court of appeals held the patent void for lack of invention and for abandonment.

Not only did the lawsuit effectively end the majors' monopolization of lateral recording, it formed a bond between the smaller companies which had joined the Gennetts in the legal battle. Leasing arrangements between the companies followed, eventually involving hundreds of masters.

Turn of the century...

[ksheka]

...What, like three years ago? Oh, you mean the *previous* century...

Re:Turn of the century...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: 2 years, 5 months ago. The current decade, century and millennium all started in on Jan 1, 2001.

Re:Turn of the century...

[Anonymous Coward]

The century changed 2 years ago, in 2001, as you would know if you paid more attention to Arthur C. Clarke's writings... :)

I did some research on Edison

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't really care for him
Credited with lots of nice things of course.

I guess a shitload of money, federal friends, a huge orange lab in New Jerz and a billion people doing the research and studies FOR you really lets you invent tons of stuff.

My geek god is Nikola Tesla. He is a straight up ballin G.

Re:I did some research on Edison

[Edmund Blackadder]

I feel the same way.

Welcome to the Tesla cult :).

Re:I did some research on Edison

[thynk]

Tesla is THE MAN! Errr... rather was. He was far before his time and the legends about him will go on for years to come, unless of course the "Edison Lovers" of the world keep him obscured.

Yeah, Edison had some good ideas - but there is just no comparison to him and Tesla.

Re:I did some research on Edison

[Shadow99_1]

Since you like Tesla, did you know he even gets a cameo in a sci-fi novel series by Robert Doherty (aka Bob Mayer) called Area 51? If you want to take a look check out his website at www.bobmayer.org. In fact a Tesla 'weapon' gets used to stop one of the evil alien races in the book...

Re:I did some research on Edison

[m0nkyman]

Tesla on Edison:
``If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.''

``I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.''

New York Times, October 19, 1931

Re:I did some research on Edison

[XSforMe]

Given that you seem to like his work, let me point you out to Tesla's Museum Webpage in Belgrade.

Been to the museum myself; it is not big, but there are quite a numbre of experiments set up you can reproduce and explanaition of the phenomena you are observing. The last experiment consists of his wireless transmission of power idea he had. You hold up a fluorescent lamp below a big power generator, the lights dim out and you actually see the lamp light up. Its a bit frightening because of the size of the whole thing and all the crackling. His ashes are also located there.

Slashdot and the RIIA

[CausticWindow]

It's time for another flame fest, I see.

I sometimes wonder if people here are reading or spending time on things other than Slashdot. If you were to, you would discover that elsewhere in society, the opposition against RIAA is almost non existant. Most people find it perfectly reasonable to protect their intellectual property for monetary gain.

Same thing with the MPAA. If you were running a movie studio, like Paramount, who bet all their assets on three movies (the LotR trilogy), then you would also be defending your property as offensively as they do. For them it's not an abstract discussion about "free speech css descramble" or any such nonsense, but about putting food on their families tables and putting their children through college.

If you for once tried to put yourself in their situation, I'm sure you would rethink your position on this one.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[SirSlud]

> but about putting food on their families tables and putting their children through college

Bwuahahahaha. Paramount can do anything it pleases. If it wants to 'risk' releasing the LoTR trilogy under current copyright laws, so be it, but your argument reads like: "They have the right to release something and then claim that no amount of protection is enough." You don't say anything that hasn't been said before, and you nicely sidestep aknolwedging that there IS a point at which the mechnanics of the protection of copyright violate MY right to put food on MY table while still being able to enjoy the fruits of my participation in capitalism.

Furthure more, of course Joe Blow doesn't know who the RIAA is or hate them. But they *do* hate the results of their actions .. everytime somebody says, "Damnit, why wont my CD play in my computer" or "Why wont this imported CVD play on my DVD player" .. they're opposing the RIAA or MPAA or whoever. Just because the average person doesn't opposed the RIAA doesn't prove that people are not opposed to the consequences of RIAAs actions.

Your post is yet another 'me too' for the status quo, which is about as hollow and moot a point as one can make.

Maybe you could tell me at which point you would NOT feel sorry for these people who, as you say have to put another BMW in their driveway or put their kids in a good university. The idea that they have to put food on the table is a joke; they could just go work for Walmart. If some guy on the street is robbing people, just to put food on the table, you tell him to go find another way to do it .. you don't sanction ANY effort to put food on the table. You have to balance those needs versus the needs of society.

You clearly feel that current copyright laws (tho they've drastically changed over the past 10 years, I can only assume you're referring to current laws) constitutes a valid amount of legal protection to the copyright holder, and thats all you're saying: "I agree with current laws." Woopdedoo. Obviously many people don't, so sit down and shut up if you havn't anything to say beyond the mindnumblingly obvious.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[CausticWindow]

It doesn't seem so "mindnumbingly obvious" to most people who post here though. That was my point.

Also, if you buy a CVD and expect it work in your DVD player, then tough luck.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>you would discover that elsewhere in society, the opposition against RIAA is almost non existant

downloading via kazaa(or similar program) seems like a pretty goddamn loud voice to me.

like you said, we geek heads are a minority. but it's the MILLIONS of people around the globe that ARE NOT GEEKS, just average folk who think the pricing/controls excercised by media giants is bullshit, and they are sending a loud and clear message to media giants.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a second... since when has "Everything is broken, we must fix it." been a more valid thing to say than "I don't think anything is broken." ?

I agree with your political perspective on the subject of copyright... ... but a hearty FUCK YOU to you because you think that just because someone is happy with the status quo gives them less right, or more accurately, a lesser voice in this debate. People like you don't believe in freedom, only 'Progress'. You should try wearing both hats sometime.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[MegaHamsterX]

No you are a bit out of sync here, it's not 2000 or 2001. Cable and DSL are now something Joe Average actually buys to make his internet surfing a bit faster.

Joe's friend who shows him P2P, he can get all the music he would like, but can't afford.

Joe's friend saw it on a TV show on some tech channel, hey if it's on TV it must be legal, they even gave his friend a hyperlink to download the necessary software.

Joe soon has the RIAA and MPAA pounding on his door and sueing him, taking the money he had saved up for college for his kids, his house, everything.

They are in Joes face and he doesn't like them, he will complain loudly to all of his friends and they will repeat it to their friends.

They know Joe, see that he's an honest good willed guy, he attended their wedding and helped them move, the RIAA are the ones who are in the wrong and they paid off a sleezy politician to get their law passed.

Just wait it will happen.
P2P has not evolved to it's full potential yet, the only way to stop it is to sue Joe Average, that will not wash well with anyone.

Yeah give my money to the same orginaztion who sued my friend, and took everything, all those actors and singers are on those bastards side, fuck 'em they're not getting my money.

Sorry, it's not a geek thing anymore, highspeed internet is in middle America now.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[Anonymous Coward]

but a hearty FUCK YOU to you because you think that just because someone is happy with the status quo gives them less right, or more accurately, a lesser voice in this debate. People like you don't believe in freedom, only 'Progress'. You should try wearing both hats sometime.

He rejected the argument because the argument did not have substance. You remember when your parents told you "because" when you questioned them? That wasn't a valid argument, and it still isn't. Now, if you see substance in the argument presented in favor of the status-quo, point it out. Otherwise the rebuttal stands.

People have a democratic right not to give a fuck, but that doesn't win them points in a debate. If you don't like he rules of debate, fine, then don't get into the fray.

People like you don't believe in freedom, only 'Progress'.

That's called an ad hominem attack. It may vent your anger, but it's a non-argument. Your "arguments" amount to nothing but bullying.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[MillionthMonkey]

It doesn't seem so "mindnumbingly obvious" to most people who post here though. That was my point.

It doesn't even matter if it's "mindnumbingly obvious" to the average member of the public. Most people are aware that radio sucks compared to even a few years ago, but not many know why. When asked "would you be in favor of all radio and TV stations being owned by a single monopoly or a small oligopoly of partnered corporations", most people answer strongly in the negative even though they don't know the names of the lobbying organizations that are pushing for this. Demanding that the average citizen be familiar with the RIAA and MPAA, and that they be in opposition to them specifically, is an unreasonable requirement. Lobbying organizations certainly don't advertise their existence to the general public. They don't want to be "mindnumbingly obvious".

And you aren't recognizing the damage that a nonfunctioning media can do to a democracy. When there are only several TV stations and newspapers in a given market, and they're all owned by the same guy who's decided he hates one candidate and wants the other one to win, the election is reduced to something with mere ceremonial value.

For a prime example of how media consolidation harms democracy, look at the FCC vote tomorrow. There is practically no public support for further media consolidation, and yet nobody seems to know about the coming FCC action on Monday. I haven't seen anything about it on TV, in the newspaper, on radio, anywhere. The only places you see people talking about these issues are sites like this one. You can take that in two ways. Either Slashdot is just full of weirdos who like to complain, or there has been an organized media blackout on a public policy issue where the media holds a conflict of interest.

Clearly you've jumped to the conclusion that we're just a bunch of whiners. After all, you don't see anyone talking about this on TV!

Also, if you buy a CVD and expect it work in your DVD player, then tough luck.

"C" and "D" are next to each other on the keyboard, and any reasonable person should be able to figure out it was a typo.

When your rhetoric descends to pointing out typos in other people's posts, it's a sign you've been trounced and have already lost the argument. You might as well mention Hitler. I might point out that your subject line mentions the "RIIA", which is ironic considering your argument that many people are unfamiliar with the RIAA so it must not be a big deal.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[Student_Tech]

I think the CVD he is refering to is the China Video Disc More info here about the China Video Disc Format, which seems to be a variation of the SVCD format. I think it is supposed to be a type of DVD thing developed in China so they wouldn't have to play ball with the DVDCCA but I am not sure on that anymore.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[MillionthMonkey]

That's an interesting link. So the parent wasn't mocking a typo after all! I guess I owe him an apology on that point.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's called an ad hominem attack. It may vent your anger, but it's a non-argument. Your "arguments" amount to nothing but bullying.

And that's not the slashdot way. Here on slashdot, we bully people by labeling their posts as flamebait, or trolling.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[ncc74656]

Also, if you buy a CVD and expect it work in your DVD player, then tough luck.

"C" and "D" are next to each other on the keyboard, and any reasonable person should be able to figure out it was a typo.

Umm...CVD is the name of a disc-based video format, different from VCD, SVCD, and DVD. It's most similar to SVCD, but its 352-pixel horizontal resolution (vs. 480 for SVCD) is DVD-compatible. (You can rip the video from a CVD and author it to DVD without reencoding.)

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[solferino]

nice posts

now, how's the hamlet coming along? ;)

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[MillionthMonkey]

My attention span doesn't last long enough for me to write a play. But maybe I can collate my Slashdot posts into a musical.

Re:Slashdot and the RIIA

[vuud]

I do not think that opposition to RIAA is non-existant, just not focused. Most everyone I talk to and explain what the RIAA is doing, what the results are, etc seem to not like the ideas. I dont have a problem with people protecting thier copyrights and such, but don't go lying and bribing down in washington...

Monopoly

[khalido]

You know, with the advent of services like iTunes, and others like Sony, etc etc. It is quite possible that a monopoly will finally be established by the RIAA. It is so convenient to buy music online from someplace like iTunes that people over the years will shift to buying their music online. Everyone wants their favourite music and all the copyrights are owned by the big labels. Any service to attract users will have to have a contract with the RIAA so they can sell all the golden oldies. I mean, if some service pops up and they just have a bunch of unknowns not many people will buy from them. Its the Bruce Springsteens and the Beatles of the world who move music.
As for Kazaa and others, hell they'll keep going strong but they will get harder and harder to use as the RIAA cracks down. I do not forsee my parents using Kazaa. They used it, and the fact that half the songs are low quality and u get many different results for a single song.. Well they don't care, all they want is to put in the name of a song and get back ONE result which they KNOW will work. Kazaa and napster to them are not worth the effort of searching and seeing if the songs are good quality and error free. They will however happily use iTunes. And that is why iTunes and similar vendors are going to make it big in the next 5 years as normal poeple start using them and discover how convenient they are. It is not the ubergeeks sitting downloading tons of music from kazaa and irc. Hell they can do that all they want it still won't detract from the ever increasing success of pay music. I predict that in the future, people will be like: Yeah, the smiths are really poor, they still use kazaa!
Many different online vendors | all having to deal with the RIAA implies a possible monopoly especially with DRM techonology maturing.

Re:Monopoly

[edverb]

There was a time not long ago that I expected a pay-for-perfect-downloads system to be launched by the major labels, back in the days when I got my first home cable modem and Napster was still a baby... At the time I was looking forward to the convenience of a real (authorized) download service launched by the labels, and was willing to happily pay a subscription fee for the service.

Now, four years later I refuse to spend even ONE of my blue-collar dollars on music, because of the labels treatment of P2P users (music lovers) as criminals. I refuse to grant the RIAA the sanction of the victim. They'll just take my dollar and use it to perpetuate their rotten behavior (could be anything from suing college kids, to illegally fixing the price of CDs, to nearly legislating internet radio out of existence, to signing the next Britney and paying Clear Channel via the NEW payola system (radio promotion consultants) to play her ad-nauseum.

The major record labels crying foul on ethical grounds? Next thing you know burglars will be suing the people they rob. Oh wait...

Re:Monopoly

[khalido]

I completely agree with all that you say.. the RIAA are Scum of the Earth etc etc. But my parents have never even heard of the RIAA!! So your argument is moot. Think about it: How many non slashdot readers do you know who complain about the RIAA? They might complain about the high cost of music and the shit coming out these days, but they don't associate these things with the RIAA. The point is, the RIAA has a near monopoly on the music biz, and if they play their cards right even now after all their stupidity, they can establish an even stronger monopoly digitally. I don't think any music service is going to be coming up soon which instead of paying the RIAA will start paying artists directly. They will start but it's going to take them a long long time to grow. And the RIAA can always chop their balls off once they really start growing.

Re:Monopoly

[MacOS_Rules]

I would like to stongly disagree with you. Everything you say is absolutely correct sans one minor detail: the indies. Steve Jobs/Apple PR have numerously explained that the courting of the big-five was necessary for iTMS to just get off the ground. Now is the time that the indies are courting Apple. Imagine a store, iTMS if you want, where all Artists, be they members of major labels or not, show up on the same page. Combine this with the 30 second previews, and all of a sudden, everyone can hear *any* band; the absolute success of a band will no longer depend on labels (though I'm sure influence will be strong depending who you're signed to).

If you consider the indies less money hungry (due mostly to their size & efficiency), there's a good chance that those songs/albums offered to you by iTMS will be less expensive than the 99cents/track, $9.99/album. The almighty dollar probably will win out here, generating more interest in the indies.

If anything, I believe such services as iTMS (if successful) will lead to eventual decentralization of power in the music industry. =)

Re:Monopoly

[edverb]

I hope you're right Mac, I honestly do.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I'll say it: The historical music distribution model is a dying species. Currently the model is in the control of 10 or so huge corps (including radio/concert promotions). The sooner these corps are forced to stop clinging to a half-century old model while strangling the music-over-IP baby in the crib, the better for musicians and music lovers everywhere...out-of-print catalogs can be made available again, and consumer choice in music CAN be democratized by technology like iTMS. The labels can profit handsomely if they define the changes rather than fight them.

It's not like we live in a world where you need to ship CDs en masse to record stores. It's not like we live in a world where there can only be so many stations broadcasting over AM/FM. The majors should have understood the impact that bandwidth would eventually have on their business back in 1998. Had they acted upon an ounce of foresight, maybe I wouldn't hate them so much today.

PS: I still buy music (used cds, or direct from artists). And to be fair, the labels already get a royalty on every CD-R I buy. I just can't condone the major's behavior (via the RIAA) so I can't justify funding it. They change their behavior, I change my attitude.

Re:Monopoly

[infolib]

Imagine a store, iTMS if you want, where all Artists, be they members of major labels or not, show up on the same page.

Imagine the major labels denying such a store their licensing...

Re:Monopoly

[clonebarkins]

Imagine a store, iTMS if you want, where all Artists, be they members of major labels or not, show up on the same page. Combine this with the 30 second previews, and all of a sudden, everyone can hear *any* band; the absolute success of a band will no longer depend on labels (though I'm sure influence will be strong depending who you're signed to).

Yes, and then the RIAA says, "Post our music above theirs (or worse, don't post theirs at all) or else we won't let you sell our music anymore." That's when iTMS says farewell to the indies....

Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[Enrico Pulatzo]

His tech was better fidelity, less backing by popular artists, and less accepted by the public. The book "The Invisible Computer" really does a good job of telling Edison's story, I highly suggest you read it.

Edison's story teaches me that in emerging technology, one must establish a monopoly if there is to be any stability in future markets. If one standard is not a clear winner, the consumer is the clear loser. Consumers will sacrifice quality for market saturation every time.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[jpmkm]

Yeah, but his electricity distribution system was shit. It was backed by everyone(who could afford it) at the time, and was well accepted. One could say he had a monopoly on the system, but that was only because there was nobody competing against him. Then came Tesla, with his superior system. Look where that got us. Edison is full of shit.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[Amiga Trombone]

His tech was better fidelity, less backing by popular artists, and less accepted by the public. The book "The Invisible Computer" really does a good job of telling Edison's story, I highly suggest you read it.

Well, that wasn't all there is to the story. Actually, the "phonograph wars" were in some way comparable to the PC vs Mac wars.

Edison == proprietary, Victor, Columbia, etc, == open standard.

It is true that Edison's Amberol cylinders and Diamond Disks had better sound quality than the competing flat discs produced by Victor, Columbia, etc.

Two problems; first, Edison's formats were proprietary, and as noted, Edison was vigorous in enforcing his patents. The only media available was from the Edison Co., and every recording they issued was subject to the personal approval of Edison himself, so consumers were limited to what was available by Edison's personal tastes,as opposed to the plethora of music available to owners of Victor, Columbia, Zonophone, etc. phonographs (technichly gramaphones - a phonograph is a cylinder machine). Also there were a number of 3rd party recording companies that produced records for the gramaphone format that weren't available for the Edison machines. Second, the cylinder format was inconvenient to use, and only allowed for one song to be recorded per record. The plaster core of the Amberol cylinders had a tendancy to swell, making them difficult to mount properly on the mandrel of the phonograph.

While the technical issues were addressed by the Diamond Disk format, by that time the flat disk (Berliner format) had become the standard, and also, the Diamond Disk was again a proprietary format, available only from Edison.

There was a reason Edison wasn't as well accepted by popular artists, too. He was a cheapskate. In those days, recording artists weren't paid by royalties, they were paid only for their performance for the recording session. After 1912, rather than pay the artists to record both a version for cylinders and Diamond Disks, Edison would pay the artist only for recording the Diamond Disk master, and then record the cylinder masters from the Diamond Disk. This also accounted for the reduction of quality in cylinder recordings after 1912.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[Enrico Pulatzo]

I was specifically thinking of his phonograph, with the cylinders and the wax, not the AC/DC debate.

Edison used to round up stray animals and kill them to display the destructive capability of AC--tres creepy.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[Enrico Pulatzo]

The biggest drawback in the phonograph wars on Edison's side was the fact that he thought the consumer wouldn't care who was singing, as long as they got to listen to music. Contrasting this with today's top 20 makes me really wonder if we've changed, or if he was just dense when it came to his customers.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[Anonymous Coward]

Edison used to round up stray animals and kill them to display the destructive capability of AC--tres creepy.

That's nothing. He convinced the government to use it to kill people. It's still used today.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[bsharitt]

not the AC/DC debate

Did edison not like AC/DC?
Hell's Bells is a pretty good song.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[Enrico Pulatzo]

The Bon Scott stuff is where AC/DC really shines.

"She's Got The Jack", both the original poker and the STD versions are great.

And who can mess with TNT? I mean, he's dynamite.

Re:Edison is like Ogg Vorbis

[AliasMoze]

"Edison's story teaches me that in emerging technology, one must establish a monopoly if there is to be any stability in future markets. If one standard is not a clear winner, the consumer is the clear loser. Consumers will sacrifice quality for market saturation every time."

No! You have it all wrong. Having a monopoly wasn't Edison's key, it was controlling the standard. The STANDARD is what makes new technology successful, but we can have standards without monopolies.

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont even want to get started on the wohole work is evil thing.

it's a means to get money. you can take it from there

i am much happier volunteering my time and helping others.

I'm so sick of media bashing

[geekee]

If Thomas Edison patents a device, he has the right to refuse to licens the patent if he feels like it. He may be able to profit better from his invention himself, rather than by licensing it. That is and should be his choice to make. In the US, the goal of govt. should be to protect the rights of individuals, not to better society at the expense of these rights. In the end history has shown that societies that protect individual right end up with the best societies anyway. Patents are limited, and the inventor needs control through this period in order to get a reward for the financial risk involved. Otherwise there's no incentive to invent and get sponsorship to fund invention. Although the DMCA has problems, given the nature of digital copying, I'm not surprised at all with the RIAA's heavy handed tactics. If you want fair use, do your share to stop piracy and stop supporting companies and software whose main purpose is to trade copyrighted material. The RIAA would rather pocket money than spend it on high priced lawyers. They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think they were losing money.

Re:I'm so sick of media bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

That should read, "In the US, the goal of govt. should be to protect the rights of corporations, not better society at the expense of these rights" And yeah, the US is a pretty shitty country, isn't it.

Re:I'm so sick of media bashing

[rzbx]

I just scanned your post really quickly and the last sentence caught my eye.
"They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think they were losing money."
They spend the money because they would like more of it. Losing money, no. If someone doesn't buy something of theirs, they don't lose money. They simply don't make any. Too many people on slashdot don't understand what "lose" means. Businesses don't lose money if someone doesn't buy from them, THEY JUST DON'T MAKE MONEY. Thank you.

Re:I'm so sick of media bashing

[DancingSword]

"In the US, the goal of govt. should be to protect the rights of individuals, not to better society at the expense of these rights. In the end history has shown that societies that protect individual right end up with the best societies anyway."

Of course!

Also, anyone who figures that a whole-human has some/any right to it's own cell-communal worth is insane:
if any individual-cell chooses 'me first', implementing cancer, than the 'whole'
-DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO-
interfere, because selfish-individual 'society' ( body, or, in this case, cancer-patient ) is inherently better than some family-values communism, where the whole is somehow more-than just the aggregate of its parts.

If muscles decide to starve/slaughter brains to have more muscular-centric development, that's MUCH better than whole-capability development ( nin-jutsu, for one ), Obviously!

Obviously.

That god-damned Commie Jew we remanufactured into the more-accommodating 'Jesus' had it all wrong, originally...

( #undef SARCASM )

Balance.

Humans have souls ( Very Subtle Minds, to buddhism ), and can really live/die. Phoney-entities ( corporations ) don't, and can't.

Remember that teaching given by the 'commie' Jew, Yeshu, who got remanufactured into 'Jesus'?
"Give to Caesar, Caesar's; give to God, God's"?
.. it kinda suggests that there is a fundamental difference between human-meaning worth, and money...

It IS true that if all is owned by some institution, that valuing-of-worth dies ( from us ), but it doesn't matter whether the institution is left-or-right-wing, in appearance, but only that the individual isn't permitted autonomy ( a blind-man who is a scientist specializing in shells, caused me to know this, his book I cannot remember... ach! )

But! for the last 100 000 yrs it seems that only the corporate era has held music to be limited-rights property, and if we organically are rigged to have our well-being dependent on a particular kind of 'human-community-mode', then blocking that in order to create corporate-monarchs
( Oh! our Kings and Emperors .. Gone! We Must Make New Monarchs!
Unconsciously, though: quietly .. or some would oppose.. )
to make us feudal again is..
Pointless, futile, useless, mindless, gutless, and sabotage of heart-meaning and real-worth.

One must own one's own work, space, being, meaning, enough to function, and develop capability, but to put the community above the individual ( within one's own atoms-to-cells, and cells-to-organs, and organs-to-body ) and then claim that it stops here, so we can butcher our community, ecology, climate and world, but have NO responsibility, is utter rank hypocrisy, though perhaps convenient to many committees/'individuals'/cancers/theives..

IF individual inherently trumps human-worth, then define individual: nazist is an individual but a commie isn't? Visa Versa? Or The Opposite?!?!

( body can't define individual, or siamese twins would be one individual, so some system-standard must apply, just as 'citizenship, if you aren't UnBelonging/UnEnforcing' applies now to many.. )

Obviously some hold that phoney-individuals ( 'corporations' ) are true and rightful individuals, but simultaneously hold that a community of human-beings who honestly give and share-with-one-another, is NOT such, and haven't equal right..

convenient hypocrisy..

always, though, it comes down to a conflict of supremacy, 'individual' being differently defined in order to wrest control-on-others from all others ( notice that it isn't ever self-command! ), and the political 'game' is very fscking tiring.

According to IP rules it isn't possible for you and I to simultaneously invent something ( method, music, poem, or anything ), so the one who it is decided invented first has

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[Dun Malg]

Odds are that you are employed by sizeable corporation thus proving that big corporations are indeed evil.

Pulling statistics out of our ass now, eh? "Odds are" that any given person is not employed by a big corp. According to US Small Business Administration stats for 2000, out of 5.8 million non-farm employer firms, about 100,000 had over 100 employees, and only about 16,000 had over 500 employees. You do the math.

Now, if you were to say that large corporations wield more power than their minority status should allow, then I'd agree...

Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[geekee]

"like the RIAA and the big media companies today pool their copyrights."

The RIAA members do not pool their copyrights. If they did, you could buy Britney Spears from any number of labels for next to nothing. The RIAA members only pool resources to fight common problems, like piracy. In all other respects, they compete against eachother, label B trying to find the next Britney Spears to sell to the teens and take label A's profits. This is the way it should work. Without the ability to monopolize an artist, a label cannot make money, since all the cost to promote an artist and make him famous can't be recovered if anyone else can sell copies of the album or if people can download it for free.

Re:Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[Edmund Blackadder]

Right ... record companies are not in competition with each other.

If you want to see fierce competition, look at soft drinks or snack foods or beer -- notice how there is so much fierce advertising, and price wars going on. Also each company is always trying to come up with something new.

In the record industry there are no price wars. Prices are actually going up ... and going up in unison. Whenever you see all the market participants raise their prices in unison without any apparent reason you dont have competition you have a cartel.

Re:Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[SirSlud]

You dont know what you're talking about.

Disclosure: I produce music.

Big Five labels regularly infringe on each others copyrights, most commonly in not clearly all samples on albums (practically all musicians, like Sarah McLaughlan, use samples, usually to beef up the beat .. you rally do need samples today to supply the kind of sound that consumers demand) .. there is a silent agreement that theres no need to go after the people *in* the monopoly to begin with. Labels only go after groups not in the monopoly to begin with, for increasinly obscure/nonobvious use of copywritten material. Furthurmore, since the RIAA is the group that goes after copyright infringers, they *do* pool their copyrights in the sense that the RIAA does not differentiate between label A being infringed and label B when they go after groups or individuals.

But the issue about them turning a blind eye to their own infringements and then creating an umbrella group to go after people *not* in the circle is clearly an abuse of power, and does show you how they do pool their IP together. You're simply taking the word pool all too literally to see the bigger picture. Most musicians can see this plain as day.

Re:Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[Eminence]

This is the way it should work. Without the ability to monopolize an artist, a label cannot make money, since all the cost to promote an artist and make him famous can't be recovered if anyone else can sell copies of the album or if people can download it for free.

Promoting someone who has no talent but just a body that would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) to perform songs that have neither innovative music nor significant lyrics but would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) is the way it should work?? Maybe these so-called artists are promoted too much with too much money?

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where a business of entertaining is more profitable and respected than business of actually building something. If it pays better to be Ozzy Osbourne than Alex Wolszczan or Linus Torvalds then we have some priorities terribly wrong.

Re:Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[ShieldW0lf]

It doesn't cost anything to promote an artist and make them famous. If not a cent was spent, some artists would still become both popular and famous.

It does, however, cost a lot of money to promote a BAD artist and make them popular.

That's why bad music costs so much money!

Re:Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[the gnat]

Another point that the poster gets wrong is that the monopolies in the article weren't fighting piracy, they were fighting unlicensed competition. In a way, they were really much worse. There would be a parallel if, say, the RIAA owned all patents on electronic music distribution and tried to shut down all independents that chose to distribute their music that way. It's absurd to claim that the RIAA is afraid of Kazaa because they're afraid of *others* using it to distribute their own music, when in fact the vast majority of P2P content is still big-name, copyrighted stuff. It is now a matter of record that Napster (the company) welcomed piracy, because that was the key to the software's popularity, and never considered using it to legally distribute music a viable business plan.

I'm tired of the misconception that the media cartels are trying to "control digital distribution over the Net." They're trying to curtail illegal distribution, which is their right. The fact that they've been consistently heavy-handed and clueless about it doesn't change this fact. Their lawsuits have been utter crap, but this doesn't give us all the right to download all their albums from some college student's PC.

Re:Poster doesn't know what he's talking about

[maxpublic]

Promoting someone who has no talent but just a body that would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) to perform songs that have neither innovative music nor significant lyrics but would appeal to most customers in the target group (according to research) is the way it should work?? Maybe these so-called artists are promoted too much with too much money?

Sure, that's the way it should work. If that's what the customer wants then that is surely what should be provided.

What's really annoying is that if Slashdot dweeb A doesn't like a certain type of music, said Slashdot dweeb tends to go on and on about the 'lack of talent' that the performers of that type of music are certain to have. That is, if it weren't for the Evil Corporations(TM) then those performers would never 'make it' in the music scene, while some rat-ass indie band would be raking in the dough.

There's a reason folks like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Avril Lavigne are popular, and that reason isn't solely based upon promotion by nefarious RIAA members. It's because large chunks of the listening audience actually *like* the music in question; whether or not you're a part of that audience is entirely irrelevant, either to their popularity or in determining whether or not they have talent.

Max

Big Media Monopolies...

[pb]

The "big media monopoly" isn't a myth at all; what you're stating is, however--that the media is owned or controlled by one group. In fact, there are several very large groups that own or control different parts of the media, and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

However, each of these may constitute a local monopoly in a given area of the media or region of the world. And even if any one giant corporation doesn't have a monopoly on a given area of the media or region of the world, that media is most likely still owned by one giant corporation or another, which--ultimately--is what people object to the most.

It wasn't always like this, you know. There once was a much larger place for small businesses and innovation in radio, music, TV, and newspapers, where people could get in on the ground floor, and offer something new, interesting, and unique. But those days are over, and the sort of power that the big media corporations hold is absolutely stunning. They have more power to censor now than the government ever had.

Ultimately, some big corporations are evil; it has to do with the amount of power they have, and how power corrupts. If you have lots of small companies around to keep them honest, then you can expect fair competition. But if you don't, well then you have the mess we have now.

Re:The One True Ranking

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in France people have free healthcare, free education, 6 weeks of vacation a year and a move towards a 6 hour work day...

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are that it was a fucking joke dude, get over yourself!

Edison

[EverDense]

So society is just being subjected to the same old mistakes of the past?

Why is the name Thomas Edison so revered?

In 100 years, will all the anti-competitive crimes of Microsoft have been forgotten? and
will Bill Gates be "remembered" as the "inventor" of so many key parts of computer systems?

Thomas Edison, like Bill Gates, was first and foremost a businessman. Yet, he gets "remembered"
as the "inventor" of many things that OTHER people actually discovered.

The genius of Edison and Gates _was_ in making inventions practicable through their employees.

Re:Edison

[Amazing Quantum Man]

In 100 years, will all the anti-competitive crimes of Microsoft have been forgotten? and will Bill Gates be "remembered" as the "inventor" of so many key parts of computer systems?

Why wait 100 years? It's being revised now. On Law&Order a few eps ago, one of the DA's got something off the Net, and the head DA (Fred Thomson) comments, "Somehow, I doubt that this is what Bill Gates intended."

Re:Edison

[roemcke]

Well, most people I know, do think that Bill Gates is the inventor of most key parts of a computer system.

Re:Edison

[zakezuke]

Actually you are very much correct. Edison made a business out of invention, which can be, arguably, be associated with software. Bill Gates made a business out of software, something back in the 1980's was joked about.

"How the hell can you make a profit out of something you can so easily copy" was a common statement regarding MS dos which was released with no form of copy protection. Before microsoft, operating systems were typicaly made by the respective hardware companies, and were practicaly impossible to pirate as physical ownership of the hardware granted you a license for a copy. Microsoft was considered to be doomed to failure for that reason, why pay $50-$100 for a product when you could get a copy from a friend. Apple them selves didn't start charging for their operating system till after system 7 [or was it 7.5]. Why should they, their product was physical after all.

Just like Edison, Microsoft's major product is basicly intelecutal property. Something created from thought to copy and reproduced for a fee to the inventors (programers). And yes, Gates will be credited by making software big business.

Re:Edison

[Stu Charlton]

I think it's because society is quick to romanticise the "inventor" when what they really value and remember is the "innovator". Invention is about creating new ideas, innovation is about taking ideas, old and new, and making them useful to people today.

Edison's real accomplishment wasn't inventing electricity, there were many others working on the same stuff around the same time. I'd say his accomplishment was building the beginnings of several industries, notably electricity (and General Electric).

In that way, Gates helped to build the beginnings of the personal computer industry. He will be remembered for that. And, like Edison, i think history will document his many faults too. They just probably won't appear in the sound-bite version of history.

Re:Edison

[drunkenbatman]

Why is the name Thomas Edison so revered?

Because he was a bloody brilliant guy who accomplished a lot in his lifetime, and those accomplishments affected a large group of people... and he's from an age where a ton of cool stuff was coming out of america.

Him being revered doesn't negate other brilliant people of his time, such as tesla, or marconi. Nor does it make him a good person... most people have no knowledge of his character, business tactics and other such bits of history.

He's revered in the same way that apache is pointed to as an example of open source being successful- to show the age-old spirt of american invention and capitalism... and that theoretically, one person can have a large impact.

Re:Edison

[bungo]

Why is the name Thomas Edison so revered?

Just to put an international perspective on this, neither I, nor my wife were taught about Edison in school, and we went to schools on differnet continents.

I think that it's more of a US perspective where Edison is revered. For the rest of the world, he's just another foreign inventor. People tend to learn about their local inventors and are told how great they are, and gloss over the foriegners.

As an example, I bet no-one from the US knows who invented that greatest of farm inventions, the stump-jump plow.

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[arkanes]

Not saying the poster is right, but your math sucks ass. For one thing, if there was one company that employed 99% of the people in the US, he'd be right and your figures wouldn't invalidate it. Further, those numbers don't include subsidaries, so just because the corporation you work for has only 500 employees doesn't mean that it (and 100 like it) aren't owned by another, larger corporation (who you do ultimately work for). I find your numbers somewhat interesting - 5.8 million buisnesses, but only 291 million people in the US. So thats a small buisness for every 50 people. Note thats PEOPLE, not workers, or even adults. Certainly doesn't match the ratios I see. Further! You said those are Small Business Administration stats, do they even COUNT corporations?

So, in conclusion: Before you berate someone for making numbers up, make sure that yours are at least relevant.

hologram projectors

[falsification]

You know, the record companies and Hollywood want complete control over technologies that were invented over 100 years ago. That's the weakest part of their argument. If they're so hot to control a technology, why don't they go and invent a new one, like hologram projection? Then they'd actually have a patent.

Re:The One True Ranking

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they're STILL French.

Phonograph history

[Animats]

There's a long story there, and that article only covers a bit of it.

Edison's invention of the phonograph was a huge breakthrough. There are no antecedents. He himself said, in later life, that it was the only truly original thing he ever invented.

There's a complicated story here, involving cylinders vs. records, vertical recording vs. horizontal recording, and some related technical issues. Originally, there were only original recordings. It took a while to figure out how to duplicate records. Early schemes involved one phonograph playing into the recording horns of many others, sort of like VHS duplication with worse generation loss. Then there was a scheme for duplicating via electroplating. It years to find a set of materials that allowed good pressings.

A more music-industry like issue is that Edison's record company decided that, rather than recording big-name musicians, they'd find less famous ones that sounded just as good. This turned out to be a major marketing mistake. The Victor Talking Machine Company started to gain market share because of this.

On a related note, the history of the incandescent lamp is usually misunderstood. The way to make an incandescent lamp is to find some material with a high melting point, draw it out into fine wire, make a coil out of it, put it in a bulb with vacuum or inert gases, and power it up. This was known before Edison. Swan made light bulbs before Edison, but he used platinum. All bulbs today use tungsten, which was tough to make into wire. General Electric Research, the successor of Edison's lab, solved that problem. It took years and sizable resources.

That's not what Edison invented. He invented a way to make low-cost bulbs with carbonized paper filaments. That was a mediocre technology, but way ahead of gas lamps. It was good enough to get the electrical industry going, and it was phased out as soon as tungsten technology worked. Sort of like CP/M or MS-DOS.

Re:Phonograph history

[Anonymous Coward]

Swan and others may have made incandescent bulbs before Edison, but none of them ever considered it as a part of an entire electrical distribution system. It is this whole systems approach that made Edison's invention commercially practicable.

yeah

[machine of god]

Edison, that monopolistic bastard.

Re:yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how this should be funny. Bastard should've been Westinghoused!

Not for long.

[Anonymous Coward]

That will undoubtedly change when the muslims take over France.

Support public radio/television

[greg_barton]

After Monday, the only impartial media out there will be public radio and television.

Support it, or it will die.
Find your local radio or television station and join up.

Re:Support public radio/television

[Anonymous Coward]

After Monday, the only impartial media out there will be public radio and television.

*cough* That should be modded +1 funny.

Re:Support public radio/television

[greg_barton]

That should be modded +1 funny.

*fart* When it comes to media impartiality, you've got to choose from the lesser of many evils. If the Christian Science Monitor had a radio and television network, I'd recommend them...

Re:The One True Ranking

[Anonymous Coward]

Free? How do they manage that?

Oh, you mean it's paid for by taxes.

It's only "free" if you don't work for a living.

oh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres a cult now? i thought maybe those people outside in the black robes were mormens....hmm

Ancient Proverb

[General Sherman]

Only the ignorant and stupid repeat the mistakes of others.

Read This Part of the Articles

[Master of Transhuman]

"Many of the early independents were resilient film exhibitors who ventured into production when they found their supply of film threatened. Carl Laemmle (Independent Motion Picture Company or IMP), Harry E. Aitken (Majestic Films), and Adolph Zukor (Famous Players) were among the pioneering independents who protested the Trust, and then laid the foundation for the Hollywood studios. Having entered the business through exhibition, they determined that they liked production better, and got out of the theater business as the nickelodeon boom ended around 1911."

In other words, the movie studios WERE STARTED BY PIRATES! (i.e., independents who were defying the copyrights and patents of the companies described in the articles).

Re:Read This Part of the Articles

[davew2040]

Wow, what a noble (and curiously self-serving) definition of "pirate"!

Re:Read This Part of the Articles

[Master of Transhuman]

Didn't read the article, did you?

Read it.

[Rip!ey]

The two chapters of the article make for an insightful and interesting read. It's well worth the time, even for those who don't normally bother.

If you need a summary, there's a good one at the top of this page.

Do you follow the news at all?

[jeti]

There's no monopoly. However a few companies now
control the vast majority of media outlets in the US.

If you'd follow the news, you would have stumbled
upon some articles mentioning this, because the FCC
currently plans to further deregulate the market.

If you'd followed the news even more closely, you'd
also have read about a little scandal about 2500
sponsored flight tickets for FCC members.

After short googling, this article seems to be quite
informative:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issu es/PID.jsp?articleid= 6850

Not a fair comparison!

[Brian James D'Astous]

Rosen is a lot like Thomas Edison... except for the whole part about Edison being a brilliant inventor who applied for intellectual property protection ON HIS OWN WORK. On the contrary, it is quite clear that Rosen is actively working to prevent the development and introduction of innovative new technologies. Bottom line: regardless of his flaws, DO NOT compare Hilary Rosen with Thomas Edison.

Re:Not a fair comparison!

[clonebarkins]

except for the whole part about Edison being a brilliant inventor who applied for intellectual property protection ON HIS OWN WORK.

You mean Rosen didn't come up with CD Copy Protection? I mean, it takes real genius to develop a digital protection scheme that can be defeated by a magic marker!

Wisdom of the Ages

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't put the Genie back in the bottle, but build a better Genie and the world will beat a path to your door!

Re:Against the flow. Fair and balanced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I posted that as AC because it was flamebait, and it got +4 funny so far. But they really are fair and balanced. Hannity and Colmes argue with each other on air. O'Reilly reads e-mails from people bashing him, and Shepard Smith (obviously) ignores his viewpoints to act fair and balanced. And the "Against the flow. Fair and balanced" is an official slogan. I think I'll write to O'Reilly and tell him that their slogan got +4 Funny on SlashDot.

--Rambling done by this temporary user of the infamous AC is not necessarily the view of Anonymous Coward.

media, not "mediums"

[1u3hr]

It's almost acceptable to use "media" as a singular, but completely and utterly wrong to use "mediums", unless you're discussing gypsy fortunetellers.

Speaking of history...

[gabec]

Seems the two industries back at the turn of the century tried to pool their patents ...

Funny, I don't remember reading about this three years ago.

Stop it, you're killin' me!

[Anonymous Coward]

What more do you want; +5, Funny--or -5, Totally Clueless?

Story of the phonograph .., 2003 version

[Anonymous Coward]

The first words spoken into the phonograph (aka world's first sound recorder) that edison invented were "Mary had a little lamb, little lamb"

And then RIAA came after him and had him thrown in jail.

Re:Story of the phonograph .., 2003 version

[AndroidCat]

Don't forget that classic of film: "Fred Ott's Sneeze". You can't get stuff like that these days. (Turner Broadcasting has claimed that they have no intention of "colorizing" it.)

To promote the Progress

[yerricde]

In the US, the goal of govt. should be to protect the rights of individuals, not to better society at the expense of these rights.

The Constitution is at odds with your statement. The stated goal of the patent system is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const., Article I, section 8).

Patents are limited

Limited in duration? That's true now, but it won't be if the big pharmaceutical companies hire Cher as a spokesmodel for the Cher Patent Term Harmonization Act. Because she's about to retire from live performance of music, she'll have a lot of time on her hands.

Limited in scope? What hurts most is overly broad patents. Imagine if Edison had patented the process of sound recording rather than sound recording on a cylinder. That's how bad some of the software patents are.

Not without a sense of Irony ...

[ProfMoriarty]

Webdev 1: Hey ... let's make a webpage explaining Edisons' fight with pirates ...

Webdev 2: Ok ... but how are we going to pay for the bandwidth after we get Slashdotted?

Webdev 1: No problem ... we'll hawk Apple's iPod on top ... and Philips PSA MP3 player on bottom ...

Webdev 2: ... Cha Ching ...

Off Topic: TNT vs. dynamite.

[Sique]

And who can mess with TNT? I mean, he's dynamite.

It is less dangerous to mess with TNT (Tri Nitro Toluol) than with dynamite (Tri Nitro (1,2,3)Tri Propanol ester + kieselguhr).

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[Dun Malg]

Odds are that it was a fucking joke dude, get over yourself!

If it was a joke, then why wasn't it funny? Perhaps he was attempting to use exaggeration in order to make a humorous point, but the problem is, you must start with a truthful premise. His premise (that mega-corps employ a significant percentage of people) was totally incorrect. Therefore, no joke.

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[Dun Malg]

Not saying the poster is right, but your math sucks ass. For one thing, if there was one company that employed 99% of the people in the US, he'd be right and your figures wouldn't invalidate it.

Well, there isn't one company that employs 99% of the population, so he's not right. Large corps (using the generous definition of 500 or more employees = large corp) account for about 45% of the employment in the US.

Further, those numbers don't include subsidaries, so just because the corporation you work for has only 500 employees doesn't mean that it (and 100 like it) aren't owned by another, larger corporation (who you do ultimately work for).

Of course they don't count "subsidiary" companies. There's no way to. If IBM owns 50% of Company X and Westinghouse owns the other 50%, who does it "belong" to? I understand your point, but attmepting to analyze the impact of who owns controlling interest in what is an exercise in futility. Throw in the fact that the majority of stockholders are individuals with small investments who have thrown their proxy vote to someone else, who buy and sell that stock based on the advice of a third person, and you've got a picture that doesn't sit still long enough to look at all of it.

You said those are Small Business Administration stats, do they even COUNT corporations?

The stats are from the SBA's web site. They come originally from the 2000 US Census. They count class C Corporations, subchapter S Corporations, Partnerships, Individual Proprietorships, and Other (which includes cooperatives, estates, receiverships, and businesses classified as unknown legal forms of organization). Pretty inclusive.

So, in conclusion: Before you berate someone for making numbers up, make sure that yours are at least relevant.

They are.

Check out this chart then

[thelexx]

It's a little out of date now, but the field is largely still the same:

Ultra-Concentrated Media

Re:The One True Ranking

[ragid]

...and they're on there way to third world status. Sounds great. Seriously though, they pay incredibly high tax rates so these serviced are not free. In most Eurpoean countries employees don't even know what their gross salary is. All thay know is take home pay. Even the French would revolt if they really knew how much they were paying to get these "free" services.

Re:All big corporations are evil!!!

[arkanes]

See, your response to my post is what you should have said in his - the figures you quoted in your first don't disprove him. These do. If only technically, because 45% of employment is rather alot. In fact, given that information, and the fact that it doesn't (and, you said, cannot) track subsidaries, I submit that it's very likely that any given person works for a major corporation, or at least takes thier marching orders from one. At the least it's likely that any given person has worked for a corporation at one time.

I'd still be interested in how many of those employers were legal fictions or 1-person buisnesses. One employer for every 50 people in the US sounds very extreme.

Thanks to all

[MacWiz]

I'm not quite finished reading them all yet, but I appreciate each and every comment posted here about this topic.

Today, I created MacWizards, L.L.C. Time to raise the stakes.

This week, www.fairforshare.com will appear and we will begin collected music -- 128k mp3 files (and lo-fi as well). All music which we will offer will come directly from the artists themselves or the copyright owners. This ensures that we will have known good, virus-free files as a starting point.

This music will also be licensed by the artists for re-distribution in the 128k mp3 format.

We will offer P2P software beginning July 4 - Independents' Day. It will be open source.

My Declaration of Independents has been transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the President of the United States. It had 98 signatures. I hope to retransmit it on July 4 to the same entities with more names.

I have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate an antitrust suit against the RIAA.

While they are working on the legal end, we finish the Edison story starting this week.

It's time to break the monopoly.

Re:The One True Ranking

[Anonymous Coward]

ok you yanky fucks. Us Brits need to come back and colonise you asshole yanks. Dont be messing up our world, stay in your own borders and keep your coward troops there also!!

fucking bunch of rappers

Not Gates Re:Edison

[WolfWithoutAClause]

And yes, Gates will be credited by making software big business.

Probably the lucky sod; but he didn't. That was probably IBM, way before Gates; or Visicalc, which came out before MS-DOS, and was the killer app for microcomputers.