Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA and French Button-Makers
Alien54 writes
"Requiring permission to innovate? Feeling entitled to search others' property? Getting the power to act like law enforcement in order to fine or arrest those who are taking part in activities that challenge your business model? Don't these all sound quite familiar? Centuries from now (hopefully much, much sooner), the actions of the RIAA, MPAA and others that match these of the weavers and button-makers of 17th century France will seem just as ridiculous."
in the mid 1800s, it was customary for the usa to give the finger to european copyright laws and publish any book they wanted to, without any royalties sent to the old world
now we have the usa whining to china/ thailand/ indonesia/ etc to enforce american IP laws, with beijing playing lipservice for political and economic reasons while on the streets of hong kong you can still buy $10,000 worth of software bundled on a CD/ DVD for $3
and obviously, in 150 years, china will be issuing diplomatic myspace invectives to azerbaijan for stealing it's genetic code for it's zero G, no atmosphere moon crops... or whatever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Theres something lacking from the submitted article, namely what did French authorities do to remedy this situation...Or did they let the button-guild run rampant for centuries?
If we're doomed to repeat our history, lets at least flesh out said history so we know what to expect. Maybe we can even escape the doom of repeating our history with a little more thought.
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/085eb68e1d35f85a0 11622abd62ced01/index.html
Centuries from now the actions of the RIAA will seem ridiculous? I was under the opinion that they seemed that way now!
If a private company being given the same powers as the police doesn't seem ridiculous, there is something else wrong.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
trying to protect their turfs, knowing that their time has passed.
Do you know those ridiculous laws, where it's required that a man with a flag or lantern runs in front of a car? No, the legislative ain't always been stupid (and these century old laws being the proof), they exist for exactly the same reason why train stations are usually at the outskirts of towns (or, at least, were 'til the towns grew): The horse cabs were fearing for their business.
And for a good reason. They weren't needed anymore as a means of transport if people could drive themselves, or if they could use the train instead. So the stations were outside of towns (to "protect the health" of the people, of course, as the official reason), so you had to take a cab to get there anyway.
We're now facing the same with the mafiaa. They are pushing at the lawmakers to install laws to protect their outdated business model, not wanting to realize that their time is over and they're not needed anymore.
Well, I guess in a century, people will shake their heads over our copyright laws, just like we're shaking them now over the requirement of men with flags in front of cars.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The analogy is not with what they are trying to prevent, but with the powers they are asking for. A private organization should not be given the powers of search and seizure, that's what the button makers wanted, and that's what the MPAA and RIAA want. They want to enforce laws to their own standards, and that's insane. At the level of an individual they would be called vigilantes.
Spencer Ogden
The RIAA has not yet gone after those who dare produce music (independent bands, labels, social networking, etc.) without being under their auspices.
Except in the purchase of blank music CDs, of course, which cost more because you're going to presumably put music on them owned by the RIAA. And they have sent take-down notices to bands who've got their own MP3s up on the web.
You might also say that the mandatory DRM in ipods hurts bands who want their music shared by keeping it from being shared by the uninitiated.
That's not exactly nothing, is it?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
It may be modded funny, but the Jacquard Loom was the precursor of the modern punch-card computer. I remember from James Burke's original "Connections" series that the idea of registering patterns on a card led to the invention of a rudimentary computing system used to track the US Census (I think it was the 1890 Census, but my memory is flaky).
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The *AA wants, for instance, to stop everyone from develop software that could be used to backup dvds. They are, for instance, stopping TiVo from developing new features to their set-top box. Those two are examples of the first item, "Requiring permission to innovate", and was illustrated in the history told by the guild requiring that anyone that wants to weave their fabrics differently should have the guild's permission.
They are requesting powers of police to watch what _I_ have in my HD, and what _I_ talk in my private net connections. This is a clear example of the second item, "Feeling entitled to search others' property".
More, they want powers to emprision or fine whoever they _think_ have their bits in the HD. This is an example of the third item; in the case on the FTA, the button-makers guild wanted to search everyone's homes, to find if they had any clothes with fabric-made buttons (that were not made by guilded members) and they wanted to imprision and fine whoever had those.
Every one of those items is telling the story of how the guilds wanted to protect their business model, regardless of the rights and protections that the citizens should have, including the right to the privacy of their own homes. The *AAs want to protect their business model, regardless of the rights and protections that the citizens should have, including the right to the privacy of their own homes and their private communications. So, as I told, the analogy is complete and perfect.
Don't just read the FTA, but the two linked-by pages too...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
- Player Pianos - When these were introduced, they were hated by musicians because they thought it threatened their livelihood, "who's going to pay us to play when you can just get one of these pianos?"
- Phonograph Records - Many musicians hated these for the same reason when they first came out, "who's going to pay us to play when you can just buy a record for a couple of bucks?"
- Radio broadcasts of records - When radio stations first began broadcasting records instead of live music performances, many musicians again felt this threatened them, "Who's going to buy our records when they can hear them on the radio for free?"
In hindsight it's obvious that none of these technologies were threats to musicians and in fact, in many cases they helped them.You're correct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollerith Silk as an ancestor of modern data storage techniques. I wrote a paper on this in school years ago - the chain of events leading from little child labourers making mistakes while weaving brocaded silk to IBM is quite interesting.
12:50 - press return.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
- Robert Heinlein, "Life Line", 1939
[Insert pithy quote here]
i do not embrace the usa, i am no nationalist, and the usa has done plenty of wrong in the world. the usa has also done plenty of good in the world. imagine that: it's done both. blindly excusing the usa for its crimes OR blindly ignoring the good the usa has done are both prejudices of equal intellectual dishonesty
but some people ascribe to american behavior what is nothing more than human behavior, common to all peoples, common to the history of the entire world, common to all current cultures. anti-americans castigate the usa for crimes that all nations commit. this doesn't excuse the usa, but why focus only on the usa when other countries do/ did the same? of course, when other countries do the same, it's all easily explained by... the nefarious influence of washington dc. i'm amazed sometimes at diatribes that wind up by logical inference from creative lines of reasoning for blaming the usa for situations and conditions that existed before the usa itself even existed!
if you have a crime that the usa specifically and uniquely does, then please, by all means, enter into the withering invectives
but if you want to sound intelligent, and not like a blind ethnocentric nationalist yourself, try not to criticize the usa for something all nations and peoples are guilty of. it makes your blind prejudice obvious and pathetic
look: blindly embracing and excusing the usa (or any nation) is simple stupid nationalism
but blindly kicking and incriminating the usa (or any nation) is EQUALLY simple and stupid nationalism
the only morally and intellectually sound point of view on the usa, or any nation, is to look at what they have done as good, and what they have done as bad. anything else, and you're a blind ethnocentric nationalist. whether that means you blindly prosecute the usa, or blindly love the usa.
yes: you. you are the same as an american ultranationalist. such a person is stupid. so are you. the only intelligent point of view of the usa is one that sees the good and bad and can wiegh both in their mind at the same time impartially
all else is useless boring typical lowest common denominator tribal vendetta
people have to learn to talk IDEAS, not TRIBES
until they do, people like you are part of the problems in the world, not the solution to them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it