Slashdot Mirror
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."
Those who don't learn by history are doomed to repeat it. Why oh why don't they freakin' learn?
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?
is that they tried to "dominate" a tangible market.
The articles are short and sweet, so please take the time to read them.
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.
> but about putting food on their families tables and putting their children through college
.. 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.
.. you don't sanction ANY effort to put food on the table. You have to balance those needs versus the needs of society.
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
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 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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
"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.
Vote for Pedro
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.
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.
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)
Beep beep.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Question everything.
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.)
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.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Correction: 2 years, 5 months ago. The current decade, century and millennium all started in on Jan 1, 2001.
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.