Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment

The RIAA and French Button-Makers 150

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The RIAA and French Button-Makers

Comments Filter:
  • Lacking... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by timtwobuck ( 833954 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:23AM (#17662916)
    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.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:28AM (#17663026)
    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 They are pushing at the lawmakers to install laws to protect their outdated business model, not wanting to realize that their time is over and they're not needed anymore.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.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:39AM (#17663192) Journal
    All along the Erie canal in the NY State, you will find charming little towns, stuck in 18th century seemingly progress bypassed them. But way back when Erie canal was the main transporatation artery, the barge companies controlled the local govt and made sure none of the "new fangled" railroads touch their towns. Well, they kept the railroads out and they got bogged down in 17th century.
  • Not the same (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Merkwurdigeliebe ( 1046824 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:46AM (#17663312)

    The French buttonmakers were wary of being undersold and made redundant by cheaper methods/producers. The **AA are keen to protect the way their product is distributed and used. They may wish but cannot prosecute other artists/publishers from publishing content w/o DRM or anything else. What they want to do or keep is their own product from being distributed against their will. That is, to be against it being virtually freely duplicated and/or redistributed w/o compensation to them. One might not like their greed, but it's greed for their product -the one they have rights to by law. The **AA are not persuing other people from giving giving or distributing their own stuff in their own way. the French buttonmakers were against others competing against them in ways that undersold them or made them redundant.

    I just think it's interesting but a different situation altogether.

    Licensing schemes are in essence a form or rights management. One does not go about as an entity violating the license solely to take it as one's own and doing as one pleases with a bit of software. There are law-related repercussions if one were to violate the licenses in software if the licesor sees it fit to persue the infringer. There are restrictions one needs to abide by

  • Re:It's all related! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kalpol ( 714519 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:57AM (#17663464)
    You're correct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollerith [wikipedia.org] 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.
  • by starX ( 306011 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @10:58AM (#17663478) Homepage
    This is probably going to get moded down, but I feel the urge to play devils advocate here. The *AAs have pissed me off as much as the next guy, but there have always been guilds and trade unions that try to protect craftsman from being exploited. These are generally a good thing; without them people work 80 hours a week for pennies a day, and children lose their fingers to factory machines. Part of protecting the tradesmen means protecting the trade itself, and the system by which a person becomes a tradesmen. Aren't you glad that you have a guild that certifies whether or not someone is actually competent to practice medicine before you go under the knife? Don't you feel a little bit more comfortable hiring an electrical contractor who has been certified by other "master" electricians as being capable of installing wiring that won't burn your house down?

    Speaking as someone who works in the entertainment industry, entertainment is a product like anything else. It is a business like any other, and a business whose workings few people ("artists" inclusive) really understand. Any sales outfit will tell you that you need to sell at a 15% margin just to cover your costs, anything beyond that is your actual profit. Yet this is something that few artists really grasp, and it's why most of them are labeled as "starving." The *AAs handle the business side of things because that's what they're good at. All you programmers out there, raise your hands up if you think you're any different. Everyone who isn't an independent contractor and works for someone else, put your hands down.

    We as artists, programmers, carpenters, what have you need the guild associations. We as a society need them to protect ourselves and our artisans from exploitation. Something that you need to understand is that the guilds are run by "masters," people who presumably know more about the trade because they've been doing it longer. People who, in other words, are set in their ways. Innovation flies in the face of what they recognize as common sense, so of course they're opposed to it. Now quit whining. Are you capable of making better music? Are you capable of being a better programmer? Are you capable of making better movies? Nothing in the world is stopping you from quitting your job and trusting yourself to the free market, and in an era where anyone can burn a CD the costs of doing business are cheap.

    And before you start thinking that the federal government shouldn't be enforcing the wisdom of the guilds, just take a breath and consider your surgeon's credentials next time you find yourself in the ER. It's a fair point that music is a lot different than medicine, but this is America folks. If you don't want politicians to regulate art, tell them! Tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them, tell them! Stop being a whiny ignoramus and use the friggin political system your forefathers fought to give you. And you know what? If your elected officials don't do what you want, replace them. If you can't find anyone to do what you want, then run yourself!

    The artistic, economic, and political power is in your hands. Start using it and quit your griping. You are free to boycott. I haven't bought anything from Amazon since they got their 1-Click patent, and I have done so with no regrets. If you don't like the *AA's business model, stop doing business with them. Nothing is making you buy that CD. You have played your part in making the system what it is.
  • Re:Bad analogy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Peter Mork ( 951443 ) <Peter.Mork@gmail.com> on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:00AM (#17663518) Homepage
    Well, reasoning by analogy is always spotty. Disclaimer aside, consider an alternative verson of the analogy: The button makers owned the intellectual property for one particular class of fastening device (the button). Others were free to invent new fastening devices (e.g., the lace). The button makers enlisted the aid of the government to prevent the evil tailors from copying their intellectual property. Like I said, reasoning by analogy is more an exercise in creativity than logic.
  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:17AM (#17663780)
    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

    which meant that american authors rarely made it into print.

    on the streets of hong kong you can still buy $10,000 worth of software bundled on a CD/ DVD for $3

    and so the domestic product withers on the vine while the West outsources research and development to China.

  • Ob Heinlein Quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:22AM (#17663840)
    "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
  • by OneSmartFellow ( 716217 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @11:32AM (#17663978)
    What, you mean like Rome, NY [wikipedia.org] where the poverty rate is approaching 15%, yep, would just love a place like that ?
  • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @12:17PM (#17664668) Homepage Journal
    And, IIRC, the reason Hollywood exists in California is because many early movies were ripped-off plays and books and the filmmakers wanted to be as far away as physically possible from all the east-coast-based copyright holders. The WHOLE FUCKING INDUSTRY is built on copyright violation! (Assuming what I read on the Interwebs is true.)
  • by openright ( 968536 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @12:54PM (#17665248) Homepage
    A more fitting example is that of the Stationers Company holding a publishing monopoly for much of 2 centuries.
    The U.S. was founded at a time where freedom from such long-lived monopolies was important.

    Unfortunately, Copyright monopolies have been extended from 13 years to 90-120 years.

    http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/cpu.htm [atfreeweb.com]
  • Re:Bad analogy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @12:58PM (#17665320) Journal
    The MPAA is not stopping anyone from making original movies.

    In addition to what the other responders said, actually they are. They are attempting to ban the tools needed for widespread self publication simply beacuse thay CAN be used to vilate their regulations. P2P and the crippling of the mini-disc and attempting to restrict internet radio are just a few tiny examples.
  • by aevan ( 903814 ) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @02:01PM (#17666536)
    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
    Agreed. However the question I'm wonder is: do the other nations raise nearly as much of a stink about being 'ripped off'?

    Trouble for me is no products really come to mind other than say, foreign films which are gleefully subbed and distributed here (e.g. anime, chinese films like "crouching tiger, hidden dragon"). It isn't until the american companies start to distribute them do you hear a stink about the fansubs.

    I wouldn't call the US blameless (by any streatch), nor the only culprit in 'theft' (any by any streatch)...but it does seem that they are the ones that raise a stink if they are the victim, while overlooking their own transgressions.
  • Re:Lacking... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Thursday January 18, 2007 @02:35PM (#17667198) Homepage Journal
    Actually, I had the same thought -- I wonder if the fact that some Amish groups still don't consider buttons "plain" (thus allowed) might ultimately derive from their far ancestors attempting to distance themselves from a mundane dispute.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...