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?
Did anyone else read that as Pornography Industry?
Here's Ted Turner's letter voicing opposition (!) to increased media consolidation.
How Politicians Lie: http://www.factcheck.org/
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.
Hey, that could be a new slashdot feature. Just delete the first 20 or so comments in every thread.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
Fox News Channel
Enough said.
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: }=(
Vonal Declosion
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.
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.
...What, like three years ago? Oh, you mean the *previous* century...
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"
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.
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.
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.
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...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
> 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
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
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.
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.
Edison, that monopolistic bastard.
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.
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.
Only the ignorant and stupid repeat the mistakes of others.
- Sherman
"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).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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.
And the copyright on that song expired. The RIAA would like to make sure that never happens again.
Sigs are bad for your health.
There's no monopoly. However a few companies now
u es/PID.jsp?articleid= 6850
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/iss
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.
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.
Funny, I don't remember reading about this three years ago.