Josh Smith Online

I have been studying globalization recently and I am finishing up, “Travels of a T Shirt in the Global Economy” by Pietra Rivoli. Travels of a T shirt traces a t shirt from the cotton fields of Texas through a myriad of legislative quota mucking to other countries and back to the racks of clothing stores in the US. A large section of the book is dedicated to the legal maneuvering of the “alphabet army” who lobby congress, other acronyms and the president to legislate the US cotton industry which is reminiscent of the RIAA and the MPAA today. An even better example requires that we step further back in time to jolly England. Well the scene wasn’t quite so jolly for those living in 17th century England as they trudged through damp days wearing woolen clothing head to toe.

In the mid 1600’s cheap cotton fabrics from India began to roll into the ports throughout England. The cotton products had many great features including, “It was cheap, it was light and it was washable. It came in a variety of bright colors and prints, and it was soft instead of itchy.” (Rivoli 153). If we compare DRM free music to music label restricted goods we find many similar features. DRM free music is cheap, easy to use on any device(light) and can be mixed or cut to suit the purchasers needs (washable…a stretch for this link ). The current state of the music industry also allows for more variance in types due to the internet, and if anyone out there sees DRM as soft rather than itchy and uncomfortable I question your sanity.

The interest of the wool weavers soon made it to Parliament with tales of labels closing and musicians starving mill closing and starving weavers. These parties also utilized the newspapers of the time to sensationalize several deaths which occurred when individuals happened to be wearing cotton underwear. With proclamations that this new underwear was dangerous a bill was passed which restricted the use of cotton to summer months. This was only the beginning of regulations placed upon the constituencies of England.

In 1689 in a move which seems to have inspired the RIAA and MPAA, the woolen interest groups pressured the government to require that,

all magistrates, judges, students of the Universities and all professors of the common and civil law….[must] wear gowns made of woolen manufacture [at all times of the year].

(Rivoli 154)

Attacking the universities seems to have a special place in the hearts of industry groups. Recently the Hollywood alphabet groups wedged a condition into the Higher Education Bill (HEA §494) which would force colleges to police networks and or purchase campus wide music subscription services.

“The language in the bill appears to be clear that failure to carry out the mandates would make an institution ineligible for participation in at least some part of Title IV (which deals with federal financial aid programs),” Steven Worona, director of policy and networking programs for the group Educause, said in a telephone interview Thursday. CNet

It seems that Universities and students are deemed as easy targets when it comes to saving dying industries. One of the only pieces of legislation actually passed which forced a group to wear woolen underoos required that no corpse could be buried in anything other than wool. Are you getting the same feeling in the pit of your stomach that I am? I can just see the RIAA requiring a Napster subscription for all buried loved ones in the event that they listen to a copy written harp tune in heaven or some Gwar down in the depths of hell!

Shortly after the Calicoe laws of 1701 it became clear to the industry that the Parliament couldn’t save the industry through legislation. I only wonder how long it will take the entertainment industry and congress to reach this same conclusion.

One of the positives of the Woolen legislation was the increase in entrepreneurial activities in England. Soon the production of cotton based goods sprung up throughout Britain and new jobs were created. This reminds me of the new alternative distribution methods for music ranging from the examples of Radiohead and NIN to the DRM freeing distribution of Amazon and Amie Street. When the official methods are restricted or cut off individuals find new ways to produce and prosper!  Unfortunately pieces of industry backed legislation can prevent cool technology from entering the market.

In 1719, possibly setting the precedent of attacking your customers wool weavers began attacking women on the street who wore calicoes (Rivoli 156)!   The news reports of the time were rife with attacks on “person’s wearing calicoes”.  Today news reports seem to be full of reports of the entertainment industry attacking its own customers, either through lawsuits, restrictions which impact only those who pay or bothersome warnings, again only shown to paying customers.

If we let history repeat itself we may see legislation like the law passed in 1733 which made it outright illegal to wear almost any type of cotton in England which lasted for decades.  In translating this move to our present time I am having trouble thinking of what the lobbyists would have us do short of requiring a tax for each person in order to subsidize the entertainment industry.  In any case, I don’t support a government propping up a dying industry.

About the Author’s views on music.

With all this being said, I don’t support pirating music, I currently use Rhapsody to get my music but I also consume a heavy amount of DRM free music from many sources.  One of my favorite genres of music is the mashup which is by most industry sources to be illegal.  I also don’t support DRM which prohibits me from using music I purchase on any device I want in a manner which suits me.  I only put up with the DRM on my subscription music because the value presented to me through volume outweighs any inconvenience.  I will purchase DRM free versions of the music which I want to own.

Tags: calicoes | cotton | DRM | England | globalization | lawsuits | MPAA | Music | RIAA | Rivoli | subsidies | Wool