Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Media Your Rights Online

Edison to Hillary Rosen - Parts 3, 4 and 5 114

Posted by michael from the what's-old-is-new-again dept.
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"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edison to Hillary Rosen - Parts 3, 4 and 5 More

Edison to Hillary Rosen - Parts 3, 4 and 5

Comments Filter:
  • Well I was gonna read the articles posted but I was blocked because the site had mp3 in it. It's not like I was going to download mp3's. Oh well, anyone got a mirror?

  • hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06, 2003 @08:44PM (#6136501)
    Well when you think about it if your company can bribe politicians into making laws favorable to you isn't that just the free market in action?

    If you put a restriction on the sale of laws and/or politicians you are just hampering the market in action.
  • 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?

    • Philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @09:40PM (#6136678)
      people had fewer mediums to through which to be bullied

      Consider this: do the Amish care about the RIAA?

      Our possessions and desires imprison us as much as we will let them.

      You can trap a monkey very easily with a jar and some peanuts...

      So, RIAA can influence us as long as our desire to possess and experience recorded sounds outweighs our desire to strip them of their powers.

      • We really shouldn't have to resort to ditching technology. The RIAA was made to serve the public, not drive us to Amishism...shudder.

        • Re:Philosophy (Score:4, Insightful)

          by pantropik ( 604178 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @10:38PM (#6136899)
          The RIAA was made to serve the public, not drive us to Amishism...shudder.


          Made to serve the public? Where the heck did you get that idea?
          • OK, you're right. It was made to surve the Recording Industry.

          • Correction. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by MickLinux ( 579158 )
            I take it you find Amishism to be an extreme version of Christianity. I, on the other hand, would find it too me a self-consistent version of Christianity.

            In light of that, I'd like to correct your statement.

            You think the RIAA was made to serve the public.

            The RIAA thinks that the RIAA was made to serve the Recording Industry.

            But maybe God thinks that the RIAA was made to bring you full circle and hopefully drive you back to something very like Amishism.

            I, for one, respect the Amish, and wish that

            • I think you hit "Reply To This" to the wrong person ...
              • > I think you hit "Reply To this" to the wrong person....

                Indeed you are right. My apologies--I mistook your comment for your sig and ignored it, and the quote for your comment.

                Also, re: that other anonymous coward post, parallel this one, who said

                > He had to sneek [sic] off the farm to use the
                > computer so cut him some slack

                Thanks for the slack. However, in reality the Amish let their kids go as they will, so there's no sneeking, particularly. That results in some heroin addict Amish kids, b
          • Some Amish guy is going to be reading this and get really pissed... oh wait..
        • Indeed. To serve the public.

          In the same way the Kanamits came- to serve man [thetzsite.com].

      • Re:Philosophy (Score:2, Funny)

        by Jardine ( 398197 )
        You can trap a monkey very easily with a jar and some peanuts...

        Try it sometime, you'll finder it tougher than you think. Even if you manage to finally trap the monkey, you have to remember to put in airholes.

        Poor monkey.
        • As for the monkey thing, I heard (who knows if it's true) that if you place some peanuts, or other such treat, into a small jar with an opening just big enough for the monkey's hand, he will grasp more peanuts than he can pull out at once.

          And he won't let go.

          Trap the monkey's hand-- trap the monkey.

          Moral of the story (since it sounds suspiciously like a parable): the monkey's own greed is as effective as any steel sprung trap. Or put another way, in 99.9% of human history, we've gotten along just fine w

          • Re:Philosophy (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Skreems ( 598317 )
            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.

            • and the more people notice them, the more independent labels and bands will spring up.

              This is very true. The one thing the RIAA has going for it is that signing with one of them gets you a lot of exposure and sales (or at least that's the belief).

              If instead, it were known that nobody ever buys anything they publish, bands will opt for some other means, possibly doing their own mixing on a PC with a good sound card, putting their own tracks on p2p and burning their own CDs.

        • Just poke holes in the jar's lid with a screwdriver. Previous experience has shown it is better to do this before the lid is on the jar with the monkey inside.
      • The Amish would care if a representive came by and asked for royalities. It's not like they're afraid to go after Girl Scouts for royalities.

        You try explaining to a Girl Scout why they can't sing Puff the Magic Dragon
  • And the Recording Industry are going to take this guy out...

  • If at first you don't succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by curtlewis ( 662976 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @08:53PM (#6136528)
    try, try again. It would seem the record industry gets that.

    So they keep trying and keep leeching more and more off the fans of music. Less and less of the growing profits actually goes to the artists whose art is what is purchased while some fat excecutive skyrockets his cholesterol level in his exotic wood panelled office while having his knob polished by some babe banking brownie points.

    I can make a longer sentence if I really put my mind to it. But... nah. That one paints the ugly picture of the current state of affairs well enough.

    Enjoy while you can, parasitical record exec! The winds are changing. If the cholesterol level or some unspeakable STT doesn't get you first, maybe actually doing some REAL work once you can't make a living leeching off the creativity of others.

    I suppose if you were a fan of record execs you could consider this a flame, but let's face it, are the descriptions above really THAT far from reality?

    • Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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
    • I mean, in any realistic sense. The "winds" may be changing, but I'd say that the RIAA has invested enough cash into it's political and corporate infrastructure to weather any "storm".

      In short, the RIAA isn't going anywhere. But pirating, warezing script kiddies most certainly are... [prison.com]
    • "Enjoy while you can, parasitical record exec! The winds are changing."

      While I would love to agree, I just don't think this is the case.

      Looking at the UK Top 25 [dotmusic.com], I am totally willing to say that there is only one artist in there that I think makes 'music' - and that's Radiohead.

      Although I have no idea of relative singles sales over time in the UK (and I can't be arsed to check them), I think this shows that singles at least are 0wned by people who like shit songs from leaching labels.

      I haven't listened
      • 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.

  • Author doesn't understand economics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @08:59PM (#6136547)
    The author of this piece spends a lot of time ranting about how copyright helps publishers, but doesn't do anything for artists. What he fails to understand is that by helping publishers, copyrights ARE helping artists. An artist is not necessarily a businessman, nor does he necessarily have any capital. Therefore, in order to make money on his work, he may need someone else to take a risk that his work is good and can be sold. Without copyright, the reward is negligible for the risk, and therefore, no one will invest in the author's work. That means only a few of the author's friends will read the work. In this case no one profits and the artist's work remains obscure. Everyone loses. Slashdot readers forget that although the artist creates the work, without someone taking a risk on it, the work may as well not have been created, as far as the public is concerned. That is the job of publishers and record labels. They take the risk, and therefore they deserve the reward. The artist gets whatever he is willing to agree to in order to let the publisher take the risk. He enters into this contract freely, and shouldn't complain he got screwed after the fact, if he's successful.

    • Re:Author doesn't understand economics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Slyder ( 30950 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @09:41PM (#6136683)
      I'd disagree. There have been many examples of how selling small amount directly is more profitable for an artist than selling large amounts through a publisher. Given a more reasonable (ie shorter IMHO) copyright limit, it could then spread to benefit others outside the smaller, more localized group sooner rather then later (assuming of course people find the [music/novel/etc] worth the hassle). Everyone wins. It's just not instant gratification.
      • Standard deal is 3 or 7 albums - right? That means you sign to a label and get a name; after three (or 7) releases (and providing there is no recoupment clause contracting you to more) then you're free as a bird. There's nothing at all to stop you from re-recording all those hits you once had and selling them yourself on your own label. The fact it's so rarely done (even in the case of Prince who, as I pointed out earlier has even stalled on this plan in spite of his hatred for his old label) is because the

    • Re:Author doesn't understand economics (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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

      • How things work (Score:3, Insightful)

        by poptones ( 653660 )
        Labels don't own the song - they own the recording they contracted. The artist is free to record the song again (once the exclusive contract with their label is up) and free to perform the song - this is how they make their money. The record deal is like signing with an ad agency; you hope you have something they'll want to sell, and if they do you sing a record deal and get to live like a rock star while driving yourself deeply in debt on the hopes you'll sell enough units to recoup. The record company put
    • An artist is not necessarily a businessman, nor does he necessarily have any capital

      So, you're saying that "An artist is not necessarily a businessman" yet an artist needs to be an expert in contract law to ensure he's getting a good deal. Of course, he could just hire a lawyer to do it, except, oops, "nor does he necessarily have any capital".

      The real problem isn't with the publishing system. It's necessary, as you pointed out. The problem, as I see it, is the fact that the majoriy of record labels seem to use contracts that can be broken down, in plain english, as 'You get x% of the profit, which is the total sales minus our costs, which we will calculate ourselves.' Then they calculate their 'costs' as 'total sales + $1'.

      The problem is it's very hard to fix something like that in legislation. Unless you make some specific law dealing with accounting practices for "all contracts involving a percentage of an as-of-yet uncertain number" or something like that.

      Or maybe a required basic course on 'everyday laws' in school. There are quite a few things that would be better if teens were exposed to a well-taught (yes that could be difficult in public schools) primer on contracts (read them carefully, require accountability), criminal law (what will happen if you're arrested), and generally what rights you are and are not granted by law, and probably more that I'm not thinking of.

      And if it won't fit in the schedule, eliminate a PE course :D

      • Despite all the whining by very rich people, contracts aren't quite as bad as they claim (if they were, Courtney Love wouldn't be quite so incredibly rich as she is). Sure, as a percentage the royalties suck, but as the parent poster mentioned, without publishing the artist would probably not have gotten any money. So they got $100,000 by signing with the label, whereas if they hadn't signed, they would've gotten maybe $50. Even if the album makes $50m, that's still $100,000 more than before. And if you
      • What's needed is a mucisians guild that ensure that coprporation does not use such unfair contracts.

        In films there exists - among others - a screen writers guild that make sure athat all screeenwriters gets a fair contract.

        Thats the only thing that works when the cooporations become too powerful. It may not prevent all cases of unfair advantages by the corporation, but should most certainly make life easier for many artists in the music field.

    • Re:Author doesn't understand economics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by franimal ( 157291 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @10:18PM (#6136801) Homepage
      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.
      • In most contracts, the artist is billed against future royalties, not outright. If the artist makes no money (as is usually the case), the label eats the costs -- they don't garnish their wages from their job at McDonald's. The only thing the artist is risking is that they'll make it big but fail to make much money from it.

        The main point is that it's very common for artists to make no money, and very uncommon for artists to sell millions of albums. So in most cases the label has basically thrown away th
    • 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.
    • The musicians and boyz band you see are not artists. They are businesspeople.

      The real artists don't care if they don't make millions off of what they really love. They care if they can make a living off of it that is all.

    • I think what has gotten everyone so frustrated, is that everything you said is true, and they [copyright holders] are taking advantage of that fact. To make matters worse, because of the internet and the PC, the majority of the function of these entities have become either redundant or obsolete, but through the years of power accumulated through a societal loophole, progress is being hampered at the cost of the public. -M@
  • I wonder what this Shawn Borri of NAPC co. has up his sleeve. "If Disney's rights go back to 1928, then..."

    umm, NAPC's rights go back to 1894? The phonograph is the one media that can't be controlled because the patents on it have been allowed to expire? The phonograph is the analog hole to end all analog holes?

  • 100+ years of (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
    100+ years of "All Your Base Are Belong To Us"

    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.

  • Buggy Whips... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dinosaur Neil ( 86204 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @09:35PM (#6136661)

    "Progress, far from consisting on change, depends on retentiveness.... Those who cannot remember the past are condemmed to repeat it." George Santayana, The Life of Reason

    "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidible outcry in defence of custom." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

    ...and finally;

    "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." Eric Hoffler, The True Believer

    I realize I'm gonna be stating the obvious here on a number of points, but I'm building to something... Even as recently a ten years ago, stamping out a new CD of new music took large chunks of money. Large enough that only Big Names were worth the investment (though there was a thriving community of Not So Big Names and even Very Small Names survivng by producing cassette tapes). Now, a "professional" quality recording studio and CD burning setup costs less than a new car and anyone can record and sell CDs, and thanks to the web, these people can get attention without repetitive and redundant radio saturation or MTV airplay. Extrordinairily talented people who don't fit the recording industry's concept of Things They Can Sell now have a way to get their stuff out; maybe they won't sell a million CDs, but they might actually see some money for what they do sell (or, failing that, they may get a chance to do what they enjoy without someone in a suit telling them about "target demographics"). On some level, the recording industry realizes that they are selling buggy whips to an increasingly motorized society and they're starting to panic. The "devil" they point to is the "pirates" (who, according to the first chapter of this series, have been with us for over a century). The same pattern is showing up in movies; remember the shockwaves from Clerks and The Blair Witch Project? Low budgets, big returns, who knew?

    So we know that "piracy" is not nearly the issue that the RIAA has made it out to be. We know that copyright laws are seriously gronked (though the intriguing points raised by Mr. Ziemann in chapter 4 about why had not occurred to me). We know that the lawmakers are either ignorant of the damage they're doing, or unconcerned (nothing like a few thousand bucks to soothe one's aching conscience). We know these things because we choose to investigate (even if it's only reading YRO posts on /.). But what about the millions of people who don't read slashdot and/or have never given the matter any thought? How can they be reached?

    For myself, I try to spread the proverbial word. I've hooked my little sister on a number of indy bands and I'm working on my nephew. I expose my friends and classmates to college radio and small label bands. I buy my music, for the most part, directly from small labels or places like CDbaby. I'm always experimenting and encouraging others to do so. I try to inform people I know about the damage being done by the DMCA without sermonizing (well, I try anyway). Is it doing any good? I dunno. Probably not much. But maybe it's enough; a couple lines after the above quote, Thomas Paine also said, "Time makes more converts than reason."

    • "...these people can get attention without repetitive and redundant radio saturation or MTV airplay..."

      I think the "getting attention" is the part that costs all the money, not the recording or the stamping of discs. The highest bar any band must leap is that of publicity.

      I yearn for a solution to the "radio gateway" that keeps talented musicians from becoming well known because they haven't made it to MTV or your local Clearnet station, but I don't think there is one yet. MP3.com, internet radio, word-o

      • I really wonder about the internet radio thing. We have a situation where good bands can't get conventional radio play, and internet radio who complain that they can't afford the fees to play big label bands. One might expect that to be a good match and a solution to two problems at once.

        You don't have to pay if the owner of the recordings gives you permission, and since internet radio can't afford to pay, they should play your recording if you let them do it for free.

        While they might not capture the sa

  • Misinformed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by poptones ( 653660 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @09:42PM (#6136684) Journal
    Everything you know about the music business is wrong... AOL gives its 30-hour employees better benefits than Warner Music gives Don Henley. Because Don doesn't own his songs, either.

    There are lots of little inaccuracies in this "article" that, together, make it classify only, at best, as "a fairly well constructed rant." The above is only one of these inaccuracies.

    "The song" is not simply the words and notes. It's highly unlikely Don's old labels could prevent him from releasing live recordings of his greatest hits under any label he now chose - including just giving the damn things away over the internet, if that were what he wanted to do.

    What the old labels own are the recordings they contracted him to perform. This is the deal most artists have, in fact. When Avril Lavigne signed away her rights to "Complicated" it's highly unlikely she signed away all rights to the song; what she signed to the label was the recordings the labels paid for in the contract. There may be a barrier to her recording those songs for any other label for a period of X months, but that does NOT mean the label "owns the songs." Songwriters own "the words" and or "the music." Artists own whatever performance rights their contract allows them to keep; labels own their recordings. That's it.

    For a fantastic example of this follow the recordings of "Ol' Blue Eyes." [sinatraarchive.com] Sinatra was with Capitol for a large part of his career (The Capitol records tower in Hollywood was draped in black when he died.), but with every comeback he would renegotiate his deal; if that meant moving to a new label, he was always ready to do so (and did, several times). And each time he moved he'd re-record all those "classics" (most of which were written by someone else) for the new label, taking his (now greatly improved) cut of the sales.

    For another example look at Prince (or whatever he calls himself now). He vowed long ago to re-record his entire catalog for his NPG label; last I looked he was too busy with new stuff, but he has, in fact, re-recorded many of them. And there's little anyone can do to stop him. They are, after all, his songs.

    • Re:Misinformed (Score:2, Informative)

      by Trollificus ( 253741 )
      "Songwriters own "the words" and or "the music." Artists own whatever performance rights their contract allows them to keep; labels own their recordings. That's it."

      One common misconception about the recording industry is that the band doesn't make any money off CD sales. Well, that is only partially true. The songwriters are the ones who make the big bucks. If your name is at the top of the song, you're raking in more than the musicians who played the instruments in on the CD.

      • Re:Misinformed (Score:3, Interesting)

        by poptones ( 653660 )
        I would say that depends on who you are. Since many artists also wrote the songs they perform, they get (roughly) those same royalties.

        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.

    • Ask Prince why he changed his name to an unrecognizable symbol.

      Because Warner Music owned his name.

    • Songwriters own "the words" and or "the music."

      From what I understood, that seems technically correct but misleading in practice. My understanding was that artists typically (and naively) sign away their publishing rights and all of their copyrights to the label, because labels like to offer to "take care of" legal matters like copyright. But this might be a misunderstanding on my part due to lack of knowledge.

      At any rate, I found a couple good links that are well worth reading. they might even clarify

    • Re:Misinformed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @01:26AM (#6137478)
      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.

    • Public Enemy was forced to remove recordings of their songs from their site that they had made free for download. These were not recordings that Public Enemy had made under contract by a recording agency, but the songs themselves were originally recorded under such a contract.

      When they talk about signing away rights to a song, they are not talking about signing away rights to an instance of a song, but rather to the song in all its incarnations. Only a few shrewd artists have managed to keep any real rig
      • 12.9.98 Take the Noise (from NME.com web site) PUBLIC ENEMY, who had been putting up tracks from their forthcoming remix album 'Bring the Noise 2000' in MP-3 format files on their web site, have been forced to remove them by their record company.

        Duuuuuhhh... When you sign a contract giving a label exclusive rights to your work, no (duh), you can't just go out on your own while still under contract. This is the main obstacle PE faced and you cannot blame the corruption of the record industry for that. I

  • Obviously... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PS-SCUD ( 601089 ) <peternormanscott&yahoo,com> on Friday June 06, 2003 @09:48PM (#6136701) Journal
    Rosen and the RIAA haven't learned much from Edison, since they're still in the dark...

  • Getting Tired of All This (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @10:12PM (#6136765)
    I continue to be amazed that people seem to be surprised and offended that other people do everything within their power to profit from their work and their creations. It was as natural for Edison to try to control the market in products he made possible as it is for someone who punches a time clock to try to control the only thing he can sell: his labor.

    Get over it. No one is going to change the world or human nature just so a few people can get free music.
    • greed and violence is not human nature. there is no such thing as "human nature" - there is just nature. nature, and by extension human nature, is all about joint survival of the species. Every species but us works in some system to make sure their species survives long term.

      our culture has somehow moved away from that, and now things that everything is to be taken from other members of our species for ourselves. essentially, greed makes us value our own interests over that of our community and by extentio

      • Human Nature (Score:3, Insightful)

        by poptones ( 653660 )
        How poetic. Bjork said something great once about poets and truth, which I will leave you to research on your own.

        I dunno where you get "since the industrial revolution." Didn't you read about Lords and serfs? About slaves? As I recall these practices predate the industrial revolution by several Millenia. Or is it your argument that slavery and ruthless exploitation aren't based on greed?

        • I have no idea what the bjork quote is. Your brief comment doesn't leave too much for me to google on, though i tried. I would be interested, if you had a link, or just posted the quote.

          You're right on the "since the industrial revolution" bit - I was trying to show that that is sort of the marker that accellerated the whole thing. Prior to that there was still greed, but it was almost always unable to individually scale the way it does today.

          The point is not that greed exists. The point is that greed is
    • I continue to be amazed that people seem to be surprised and offended that other people do everything within their power to profit from their work and their creations.

      YM "other people's work and creations". I don't think Hillary Rosen has written many songs.

  • Edison was an asshole. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06, 2003 @10:17PM (#6136796)
    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.

  • pattern? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sniggly ( 216454 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @11:27PM (#6137085) Journal
    Isn't it the medium? Media companies could charge for content because the content had to be sold on a carrier medium, clay tablets, paper, vinyl, plastic.. The internet changes all that. The internet will cause content-creator and end user to contract directly and the middle men will be out of luck. DRM won't ever work because total control is a political illusion with no real footing in reality.

    It's not just MS and Oracle that have to be afraid of the `commoditization' that linux/mysql/open source cause. Everything moves towards it.

    Back to the days of greek theater....

    • Re:pattern? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zakezuke ( 229119 )
      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.

    • I agree, see here a post on the iTMS story

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=66423&cid=61 17 090
  • All credits should be given to Tesla who did the real work. Edison was just a nasty jerk.

  • Composer's Rights (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DonK ( 16030 )
    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
  • Can't wait for the next season to air...

  • Things have changed too much (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:07AM (#6138674) Homepage Journal
    At one point the author stated that the same scenario is taking place where the RIAA has the monopoly but here's the difference today.

    Today you have full blown capitalism in it's worst form. You need credit for anything so this is the limiting factor the independents would have to challenge to take on the RIAA and break their Trust (There's really no monopoly here so I'll go with Trust)

    They dont control distribution, media (Cd's), players, or locations to play the music. At least not yet so that's one difference here.

    An independent can come along and they did back in 98-2000 area via mp3.com which used to be a great site when it was just no name indie bands that were there. Then they sold out and now there's tons of RIAA backed bands there selling music.

    When MP3.com tried to copy all the music in the world and stream it to users the RIAA jumped on them. Before that time there were a handful of name brand bands located there but shortly after you couldnt go to any genre and see one of the indie bands pop up in the top 20 they had all been replaced by the big bands.

    The limiting capital factor here hurts the independent from breaking the Trust. At this point in time you need money to produce, money to advertise, and you need clout to get your product in the shelves of any store such as walmart. While it'd might be possible to distribute via independent music stores getting the word out is more important.

    Factors that would help the independents -

    Cheap internet access to distribute from. Lets get real here bandwidth is there, we've got miles of dark fiber and frankly as a network engineer costs have come down from the copper line days. The T1 needs to cease to be the cash cow it's been for the telco's the last 20 years. Let the T3+ become the cash cows and let the consumer have multimegabit access up and downstream.

    If it was cheap for them to advertise on the internet and then distribute their music then they could easily get the word out and do the sales themselves. It's far cheaper to do a bulk mailing job with a bunch of machines burning cd's and also doing online paid music downloads than doing all the hard work it takes to get into one store.

    It's no coincidence that the RIAA's outlash against Napster and the subsequent loss of full speed uploads via cable/dsl (Most are now limited at 128k) so people just cannot have a home webserver running where they can share their creations witht he world. Once again I have to point to the T1 cash cow. Server hosting is prohibitive in the sense it costs to pay for all the bandwidth you'd pump out before you get a return in sales. Of course your band has to be loved to make sales so then it comes down to a gamble there.

    And it's that gamble that creditors will not be likely to loan musicans money especially if they're not known world wide.

    Now as the internet continues to socialize the world things may change but it's not going to happen over night.

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close