Slashdot Mirror
Edison to Hillary Rosen - Parts 3, 4 and 5
An anonymous reader writes "MP3newswire.net has the follow up to the first two chapters of its series "Thomas Edison, Intellectual Property and the Recording Industry". These articles show that the controllers of the media bullied folk back then as they do now - and it didn't work. The last installments of the 5 part series include; Chapter 3 -- The Industry Evolves, Chapter 4 -- Copyright and the Grand Illusion, and closes with Chapter 5 -- Bringing the Past Into the Present"
I have a question. Which time period had more diverse media? Today we have huge corporations that own parts of many types of media and have overwhelming control because of all their money and their corporate privilages that the US government has so graciously granted since Edison's time. But back then the media was much more limited. There was no TVs or Internet so people had fewer mediums to through which to be bullied. If someone controlled one or two of these mediums they could probably do a decent job of bullying. So, it might not have worked back then, but is it more or less likely to work today?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Well that basically how mariah carey became a star.
She was waiting tables at some fancy restraunt in nyc when the sony records ceo was eating lunch. So he picked her up, boned her and since the putang was good he married her and gave her a record deal. Not a bad trophy wife eh?
Now that they are divorced she lost her sony contract and gets no marketing or promotion and has basically faded back into obscurity (albiet with a few more million than before).
Basically with mixing technology today anyone can be a star if the record company execs fancy them.
And yet, the rebels prevail.
Reminds of all the FUD from Edison about this ridiculous Tesla guy and his "Alternating Current" (the work of the devil)
Some things just never change.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Whoa. I don't think that he's forgotten about artists. I think the major point is that the term of copyright has been way over-extended and should be brought back into the realm where the creator has control over their work. I can understand an artist signing away certain rights to the publishing of their work, but at the same time, I think those terms should be reasonably respectful to the artist and not attempt to solely further the economic interests of the publisher. The publisher (or label or whatever you'd like to call it) should be able to be compensated for their risk, but should this be at the cost of the artists' ability to create that work?
Business and arts rarely mix well, but we're nearing a time when ideally the arts can support themselves in some ways. Taking this 'revenue source' away from business may seem like stealing, but it's a better way of managing the work of artists as oppose to how they do it now.
I haven't RTFA, but this rant is about Edison's other inventions & closed inventions in general:
Edison invented the electric chair - not as a means in itself, but as a marketing stunt when his DC electricity distribution system had a huge problem: it was inferior to Tesla's AC system, a competing product designed to solve the same problem.
To graphically demonstrate the "dangers" of Tesla's AC electricity, Edison electrocuted animals (including elephants) - and eventually staged executions of criminals in public using an "electric chair" - powered by Tesla's alternating current system. Look how dangerous it is! Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!
It's more gratuitous - but not much - than today's publicity stunts that companies pull with the DMCA and the ??AA practially saying you "support terrorism" and are "depriving artist" when you download MP3s and movies. I'm not going to magically have an extra
Such scare tactics don't work for anyone - and seem to be an indicator that they've already lost. And opening your secrets lets them live longer than you will. I can't imagine anyone will be running any sort of "Microsoft Windows" in 30 years, but I think Linux and the *BSDs will still be here. All patented and closed formats, techniques and software - will decay and cease to exist.
Microsoft, Edison, RIAA, MPAA, software patent extortionists: greedy children with "closed secrets" that will be forgotten in time.
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion, it is not the record label that takes the risk but the artist. Many (if not all) of the artists signed to record deals already have a number of songs -- songs that they created at their own risk -- with their own money. So when a record label signs an artist they are not just signing an artist that has no portfolio. Instead they sign the artists with the strongest portfolios and thus incur the least risk for themselves.
Furthermore, in a standard record label deal the artist agrees to pay all the costs of recording, promotion, production, transportation, food, etc out of their royalties. What is the record label going to pay for? Honestly, it seems to me that the only risk the record label assumes is the fact that the artist may bomb and owe the label millions. In that case, which seems to be very rare, the artist is bankrupt and the label has taken a profit hit.
Are you still entirely sure that it is the labels that assume the risk? Personally, I think that, unless my sources are very wrong, the artist takes the greatest risk -- by far.
An artist is not necessarily a businessman...
...
He enters into this contract freely, and shouldn't complain he got screwed
These two comments appear to be mutually exclusive.
I think a system based on a base fee plus percentage would work for production and distribution. I don't think that the flagfall fee for these functions should be the total annihilation of the creators' ownership of his/her works.
And, in the example of Sinatra, I also doubt that is true. Look over his Capitol and Reprise discography and see how many times his bigger hits are repeated. Those aren't simple reissues of the same recordings; every time he cut a new deal (for more money) all those classics got re-recorded. The guy knew how to play the game, that's for sure.
This is not funny, this is scary. Even if you meant it as a joke, there are just too many people out there who think this way.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
You aren't the only one who has changed his music listening/purchasing habits in this manner. I can't remember the last time the radio was interesting, and the music industry tactics have made me absolutely refuse to buy their products (it's not actually a hard choice when they don't have anything interesting to offer me).
Keep up the good work.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Oh theres alot of Jazz musicians that would debate the point.
If you get into older music youll find that the copyrights the record companies want indefinitely extended were acquired by means little better than theft.
Look at leadbelly or many of the other seminal roots of American music. Willie Nelson is a more current example. Youll see artists that were treated worse than I treat toilet paper. Youll also see record companies that are still selling their music and paying their heirs nothing. Whats worse Their are whole swaths of music that are locked up in vaults and may never be released.
Now lets look a hundred years into the future. DRM has been in place for nearly a century. For the sake of argument it actually works. The collected works of artist X are due to come into the public domain. Guess what it doesn't matter anymore. They can't. The DRM is protecting them the record companies don't want someone contributing to the culture that they aren't making a profit on, so the recordings are just left to die. Even if you could bypass the "Strong DRM" it doesn't matter because thats illegal.
Record companies aren't about creating or expanding a market for music, they are about controlling an existing market. If you don't believe that look at what they do to used record and CD dealers.
As long as the means of distribution are thoroughly under the thumbs of the large labels they will be able to pressure artists to sign whatever kind of garbage passes for a contract with them. The fact that their are counterexamples just means that occasionally a few lucy or gifted can win at a rigged game. The game is still rigged.
I've said this many times.
Let me copy that CD and pay for a licensed case and label to asfix on it.
This would work for big corps and independence alike.
Copyright holders get thier cash, artists get royalities, everyone wins.
It's a small step but I think it's the first one nessecary to establish that we buy the content, not the media. I don't pay $12.99 for the CD to hang on my x-mas tree afterall.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
My understanding of the ASCAP/BMI operation (IANAL) is that: In the case of composers of music, the rights and associated royalties streams are divided equally between the composer and the composer's publisher. When ASCAP or BMI sends out the royalty checks, the composer's half is sent to the individual composer, not to his/her lawyer, or agent or publisher. The understanding is that the composer does not have the right to sign away his/her composer share to another, and so the Publisher is prevented from demanding 100% of the royalties as a price of doing business. Needless to say, such a system is not in place for other kinds of intellectual property rights!
We don't even have to give up DVDs, CDs, etc... since the equipment to produce them is essentially at a general-consumer cost level, we can make them ourselves. All we have to give up is the music that is controlled by affiliates of the RIAA. There are many good alternatives available, and the more people notice them, the more independent labels and bands will spring up.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie