Well, you're obviously very passionate about your dislike of LinkX & your stance on his anarchistic tendencies. I just want to say that maybe we could approach the whole 'pirating' situation from the opposite direction? Maybe the laws we have in place are outdated and not completely relevant to the digital age? Perhaps... and this may be shocking to some but, make it so what is considered 'digital piracy' not-illegal? Who knows, I'm just throwing ideas around.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would a government condone... let alone make legal intellectual property theft? Downloading a pirated copy of a video game is the same as modding your Playstation and playing copied disks. You are using the software (therefore the service) without paying for it. You are recieving the same benefits (or close to it) as those of us that actually paid.
Making digital content (especially in the case of movies and video games) takes vast quantities of time and money. It takes capital to create consumer goods. Capital costs overhead. By not paying for the shit you download... you are stealing (unless the publisher makes it free). Plain and simple.
There is absolutely NO reason to make digital piracy legal. By doing that, there is no such thing as intellectual property rights and you just completely destroyed the incentive for a company to create digital goods. You just put Blizzard, Bioware, etc out of business.
Just gonna throw this in here, the government has shut down big corporations before and almost shut down Microsoft but didn't due to that such an action would make Bill Gates only even richer than he was at the time.
im aware the government has shut down companies thats nothing new. but huh? how would shutting down microsoft make him richer? and WHY were they going to shut it down?
Trusts. When a monopoly is shutdown and split, new companies form and trusts are formed between them generating mass revenue (due to being interconnected). This is what happened early on the automobile industry, the early telephone industry (whose split became AT&T, Verizon, etc.), and the railroad industry. Due to how anti-trust America is they deemed it better to reach an agreement with Microsoft rather than repeating another monopoly shutdown to prevent another trust fiasco.
Trusts. When a monopoly is shutdown and split, new companies form and trusts are formed between them generating mass revenue (due to being interconnected). This is what happened early on the automobile industry, the early telephone industry (whose split became AT&T, Verizon, etc.), and the railroad industry. Due to how anti-trust America is they deemed it better to reach an agreement with Microsoft rather than repeating another monopoly shutdown to prevent another trust fiasco.
1. You're mis-using the word trust. While it technically describes the kind of mono/oligarchic cartel found when competition has been crushed, the colloqualism you're applying here is trust-busting or the act of splitting those cartels down into fragments that cannot dominate the market.
2. There is not "mass revenue," generated when a monopoly is split and in-fact the share holders usually loose value.
3. Verizon was not a spin-off of AT&T, the baby-bells were the subsequent developments (although Bell Atlantic was parto of the emergent Verizon corp). The bust of the Morgan railroad cartel in the nort-east was a good example, but the railroad industry as a whole was not applied the same treatment. It enjoys a government-sustained cartel to this day.
4. America hasn't been strongly anti-trust in over a century. Oligopolies and Monopolies run rampant in out marketplace with and without government approval. Since the Regan admin, more consolidation occured than any time prior to the guilded age (1900s-20s when we began the practice by fracturing Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and the early robber-baron monopolies). The show-trials of MS and Google (to name a recent few) show just how little the modern government cares about market competition.
Well, you're obviously very passionate about your dislike of LinkX & your stance on his anarchistic tendencies. I just want to say that maybe we could approach the whole 'pirating' situation from the opposite direction? Maybe the laws we have in place are outdated and not completely relevant to the digital age? Perhaps... and this may be shocking to some but, make it so what is considered 'digital piracy' not-illegal? Who knows, I'm just throwing ideas around.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would a government condone... let alone make legal intellectual property theft? Downloading a pirated copy of a video game is the same as modding your Playstation and playing copied disks. You are using the software (therefore the service) without paying for it. You are recieving the same benefits (or close to it) as those of us that actually paid.
Making digital content (especially in the case of movies and video games) takes vast quantities of time and money. It takes capital to create consumer goods. Capital costs overhead. By not paying for the shit you download... you are stealing (unless the publisher makes it free). Plain and simple.
There is absolutely NO reason to make digital piracy legal. By doing that, there is no such thing as intellectual property rights and you just completely destroyed the incentive for a company to create digital goods. You just put Blizzard, Bioware, etc out of business.
You know that just about all movies are filmed and edited on computers PRIOR to being released in theaters & put on DVDs? It's not costing extra money to have content online. The whole thought of making 'pirating' legal would make it so it's NOT theft... I guess the concept is hard for some people to wrap their minds around, but it would just be legal, so it wouldn't be theft.
Does no one notice that games (like CoD:MW3) have been continuously making INCREASING amounts of money as time goes by, even with all this 'terrible pirating' going on? Some people (hell, MOST people) would rather have a physical copy. Same concept with movies, a LOT of people would rather spend money in order to have a physical copy of the product they have.
Trusts. When a monopoly is shutdown and split, new companies form and trusts are formed between them generating mass revenue (due to being interconnected). This is what happened early on the automobile industry, the early telephone industry (whose split became AT&T, Verizon, etc.), and the railroad industry. Due to how anti-trust America is they deemed it better to reach an agreement with Microsoft rather than repeating another monopoly shutdown to prevent another trust fiasco.
4. America hasn't been strongly anti-trust in over a century. Oligopolies and Monopolies run rampant in out marketplace with and without government approval. Since the Regan admin, more consolidation occured than any time prior to the guilded age (1900s-20s when we began the practice by fracturing Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and the early robber-baron monopolies). The show-trials of MS and Google (to name a recent few) show just how little the modern government cares about market competition.
I'm kinda glad the government knows when to stfu. Let the market speak for itself. If people (customers, i.e. the market, i.e. all of us pretty much) are upset that Microsoft or Google are as large & controlling as they are, then we will reflect it by not using their products. If you contend that it'd be too hard, then it's pretty apparent you care more about convenience than standing up against what you consider an overpowered company.
BTW 'you' doesn't refer to you in particular Proletaria. Didn't want anyone getting upset over a misunderstanding.
I'm kinda glad the government knows when to stfu. Let the market speak for itself. If people (customers, i.e. the market, i.e. all of us pretty much) are upset that Microsoft or Google are as large & controlling as they are, then we will reflect it by not using their products. If you contend that it'd be too hard, then it's pretty apparent you care more about convenience than standing up against what you consider an overpowered company.
BTW 'you' doesn't refer to you in particular Proletaria. Didn't want anyone getting upset over a misunderstanding.
I've no doubt you weren't intending to upset me, but I'm going to offer you a little economics course because I feel you're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly or oligopoly does.
When a monopoly is in control of a market, consumers cannot choose to stop buying their products because competitors are not able to enter the marketplace. Suppose AT&T had persisted and been the only provider of telecommunications service in the US. Suppose you were tired of them and wanted to stop using their service. You would simply have to go without phone, internet, etc. You would be unable to do this without either 1. Using someone else's AT&T service or 2. Ending any hope of keeping a job that required you to have internet and phone communication access.
If, in a monopolized market, a competitor enters, the following happens:
1. Hostile take-over of the new company.
2. The existing monopoly uses it's market (and possibly government) control to bully it out of business.
3. The monopolizing entity simply operates at a loss until the new corp. is bankrupt because it can play long-term.
Nowhere in the monopoly scenario does the consumer have the power to change the market UNLESS the consumer group is able to completely do without the good or service being supplied by that monopoly. Obviously, in many scenarios that is no feasible.
This isn't bias in favor of taking down the "big bad corporations." This is bias in favor of keeping corporations competitive enough that they cannot forcibly control a market. Government-mandated monopolies exist solely because these industries are natural monopolies and even then the government is suppose to uphold consumer-conscious practices (they tend to do poorly at this now-a-days) so that the monopolist cannot take full advantage of their position and set up a profit-fleecing operation.
If you would like to know more, I have written at some length on the history of oligarchic industry and the US government (mostly from the early 20th century) and would be glad to fill you in on exactly why "trust-busting," and the rest of our regulating bodies came about. Contrary to popular belief, it was not big-government for government's sake. It may be a bit off-topic for this thread so feel free to PM me or get another thread going.
I'm kinda glad the government knows when to stfu. Let the market speak for itself. If people (customers, i.e. the market, i.e. all of us pretty much) are upset that Microsoft or Google are as large & controlling as they are, then we will reflect it by not using their products. If you contend that it'd be too hard, then it's pretty apparent you care more about convenience than standing up against what you consider an overpowered company.
BTW 'you' doesn't refer to you in particular Proletaria. Didn't want anyone getting upset over a misunderstanding.
I've no doubt you weren't intending to upset me, but I'm going to offer you a little economics course because I feel you're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly or oligopoly does.
When a monopoly is in control of a market, consumers cannot choose to stop buying their products because competitors are not able to enter the marketplace. Suppose AT&T had persisted and been the only provider of telecommunications service in the US. Suppose you were tired of them and wanted to stop using their service. You would simply have to go without phone, internet, etc. You would be unable to do this without either 1. Using someone else's AT&T service or 2. Ending any hope of keeping a job that required you to have internet and phone communication access.
If, in a monopolized market, a competitor enters, the following happens:
1. Hostile take-over of the new company.
2. The existing monopoly uses it's market (and possibly government) control to bully it out of business.
3. The monopolizing entity simply operates at a loss until the new corp. is bankrupt because it can play long-term.
Nowhere in the monopoly scenario does the consumer have the power to change the market UNLESS the consumer group is able to completely do without the good or service being supplied by that monopoly. Obviously, in many scenarios that is no feasible.
This isn't bias in favor of taking down the "big bad corporations." This is bias in favor of keeping corporations competitive enough that they cannot forcibly control a market. Government-mandated monopolies exist solely because these industries are natural monopolies and even then the government is suppose to uphold consumer-conscious practices (they tend to do poorly at this now-a-days) so that the monopolist cannot take full advantage of their position and set up a profit-fleecing operation.
If you would like to know more, I have written at some length on the history of oligarchic industry and the US government (mostly from the early 20th century) and would be glad to fill you in on exactly why "trust-busting," and the rest of our regulating bodies came about. Contrary to popular belief, it was not big-government for government's sake. It may be a bit off-topic for this thread so feel free to PM me or get another thread going.
I'm just looking at it from an average-person point of view. The specific companies that were mentioned were Microsoft & Google. If you hate what Microsoft is doing, use LINX/UNIX/OS-whatever number you want. There are other options for operating systems. As far as Google, the exact same applies. Use Bing, Yahoo!, etc. Do not use youtube (which honestly isn't even a big thing to ask of someone) or any other sites/organizations Google has bought out. Also, buy an iPhone or a simple older type phone. As far as saying something like AT&T goes, there ARE competitors for phone service, and you DO NOT need internet. Big difference between need and really really want. I wouldn't mind hearing some other company that you think has a monopoly on a needed service.
I personally have mixed feelings on the whole "at what point does government step in" because with a PRIVATE business you really shouldn't ever have to have the government step in to keep you from expanding to whatever size, so long as you're not breaking any laws. The problem comes with laws that specifically try and keep companies under a glass ceiling. If you built your company up to be able to buy out all competition and quash competitors that try to compete against you, didn't you earn it? What happened to reaping what you sow, and not reaping what you sow unless you sowed
"too much" and intend on reaping every bit of what you put down?
Edit: Oh yeah, good point, we really should keep this on topic of this whole bill/petition issue.
I'm just looking at it from an average-person point of view. The specific companies that were mentioned were Microsoft & Google. If you hate what Microsoft is doing, use LINX/UNIX/OS-whatever number you want. There are other options for operating systems. As far as Google, the exact same applies. Use Bing, Yahoo!, etc. Do not use youtube (which honestly isn't even a big thing to ask of someone) or any other sites/organizations Google has bought out. Also, buy an iPhone or a simple older type phone.
And that is likely why MS wasn't and Google hasn't been found in violation of anti-trust laws.
As far as saying something like AT&T goes, there ARE competitors for phone service, and you DO NOT need internet. Big difference between need and really really want. I wouldn't mind hearing some other company that you think has a monopoly on a needed service.
There are competing companies for phone service because AT&T was broken up. As for not needing internet, I don't know what you do for a living, but my job (and it isn't even a tech job, i'm a professor) would not be doable today without ready access to the internet at work and at home. The existing monopolies are largely obvious: power companies in most regions are government sanctioned monopolies. They charged with providing their area with power for cost of production plus a given percentage in profit.
I personally have mixed feelings on the whole "at what point does government step in" because with a PRIVATE business you really shouldn't ever have to have the government step in to keep you from expanding to whatever size, so long as you're not breaking any laws.
First off, anti-trust laws are just that: laws. They were created for a very good reason: to prevent markets from being dominated by singe players or a small number of colluding players at the expense of the consumer. A healthy market economy cannot sustain itself under the stress of monopolies in key industries without some kind of oversight. Some markets naturally trend towards smaller (or single) numbers of providers so either the government regulates them or they allow that provider to gain an unhealthy amount of power over the economy as a whole from their choke-point.
The problem comes with laws that specifically try and keep companies under a glass ceiling. If you built your company up to be able to buy out all competition and quash competitors that try to compete against you, didn't you earn it? What happened to reaping what you sow, and not reaping what you sow unless you sowed
"too much" and intend on reaping every bit of what you put down?
Doesn't the newer more innovative company earn something too? I think you're missing the functional premise behind a monopoly. Once the monopolist is in place, there is no room for innovation outside of that company. It is a closed circuit loop whereby nobody else can enter without their permission. If they decide to go full-profit (which makes the most sense, given they have no competitive reason to provide higher quality) and slash value, they can do that without worrying about loosing their hold on the market. All they have to do is continue a strangle-hold on their industry with hostile actions (which are perfectly legal in the absence of anti-trust laws).
The intent of a "free market," isn't to generate a first-come first-dominate forum for the biggest company to simple take over the whole economy. It is a place where companies are meant to compete with one another to provide the most efficient good or service possible. The moment a market becomes choked by an unregulated monopolist, efficiency flies out the window. If you fear a big-government intervention, you might consider the alternative is the exact same animal (a giant bureaucratic mess), except it isn't elected and has no duty to the people it serves. I think it's wise to question the actions of the government during such regulations, but the question of concept behind preventative trust-busting has been illustrated throughout our storied economic history.
It's too late & I'm too exhausted to reply to all of your last message, but I did want to reply to this specific part. Congrats! Your 1000th post is followed swiftly by my 100th! Goodnight, and Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Did you guys even read the bill? It is designed to provide power to shut down any website ICE and MAFIAA designates as 'illegal.' If you think this is about piracy you obviously didn't read a single sentence of the bill. What you're doing is akin to arguing against quantum physics because 'blue equals seventeen.' You have no clue what you're talking about and really shouldn't post until you read the bill.
Bright House. So no, Comcast doesn't fall into that category. It has competition (other than just Bright House, I was just giving an example of 1).
Comcast/Bright House don't overlap everywhere. In-fact most providers have at least some region of monopoly on their service. The mitigating factor these days would be alternative sources of internet service like wireless/satellite (although wireless isn't available in all those places and satellite is an awful alternative).
Bright House. So no, Comcast doesn't fall into that category. It has competition (other than just Bright House, I was just giving an example of 1).
Comcast/Bright House don't overlap everywhere. In-fact most providers have at least some region of monopoly on their service. The mitigating factor these days would be alternative sources of internet service like wireless/satellite (although wireless isn't available in all those places and satellite is an awful alternative).
If satellite is available in most of those places, that's an alternative. Awful or not, an alternative is an alternative. Also, satellite companies like Dish aren't really as awful as the hype says. Just like the nearly-no-longer-applicable logic behind burned in images on modern big screens, it's just not the issue (anymore) that it's still being hyped up to be.
LinkX from what I see of your posts on this forum you seem to be damn near an anarchist. Every thread you get passionate about is something about how someone is trying to stop you from doing what YOU want and therefore they are wrong. (Blizzard opposing Mods, this thread, etc).
Maybe you should read some more of my posts then. I am very much in favor of a government, just not a dictatorship. (Don't even get me started on religion. )
First, you are wrong btw LinkX. You guys think you can simply get around a firewall block by typing the IP address rather than the DNS.... well sir thats not correct. All foreign websites (like piratebay) are channelled through entry points into the United States. If the firewall was set to block the IP specifically then it cannot be accessed unless the IP address changes. Since the use of IPv4 addresses is extremely overdone (with only 4Million possible addresses, and signficantly more machines connected), the ability to change IP addresses on the fly won't be easy...
If they block the IP address, then yes you are right, but most lawyers who have read this law are saying that the most likely route that they would take would simply be to block the www.whatever.com address, not the ip address.
They could easily block the IP address, however, and in that case you would be right.
Second, if you actually understood copyright laws... (which you don't) you would understand that videos, photos, etc are not natively copyrighted and according to some case law... unless the work is bannered as copyrighted, it does not maintain the same rights. Software is a different story due to the fact that that almost always the headers in the code contains copyrights... and unless its opensource its almost always copyrighted.
I never said that things were natively copyrighted. I simply said they would go after websites that had the ability to share copyrighted material, like Youtube, or Diablofans, or Facebook.
Third, again... you simply don't understand copyright law and you are argueing simply because you cannot stand someone impeding you from doing what YOU want (seems like a partial form of hedonism). As my major is computer forensics... and 90% of private sector CF is intellectual property theft... I have had alot of copyright law classes. I don't have my old textbooks on me atm, but I can lay down the case law on you if you deem necessary.
And my daddy can beat up your daddy, too!
The internet tough guy act hasn't worked for a long, long time. >.>
I just want to say that maybe we could approach the whole 'pirating' situation from the opposite direction? Maybe the laws we have in place are outdated and not completely relevant to the digital age? Perhaps... and this may be shocking to some but, make it so what is considered 'digital piracy' not-illegal? Who knows, I'm just throwing ideas around.
You know, new ideas and ways to tackle problems is always a good idea.
1. You're mis-using the word trust. While it technically describes the kind of mono/oligarchic cartel found when competition has been crushed, the colloqualism you're applying here is trust-busting or the act of splitting those cartels down into fragments that cannot dominate the market.
2. There is not "mass revenue," generated when a monopoly is split and in-fact the share holders usually loose value.
3. Verizon was not a spin-off of AT&T, the baby-bells were the subsequent developments (although Bell Atlantic was parto of the emergent Verizon corp). The bust of the Morgan railroad cartel in the nort-east was a good example, but the railroad industry as a whole was not applied the same treatment. It enjoys a government-sustained cartel to this day.
4. America hasn't been strongly anti-trust in over a century. Oligopolies and Monopolies run rampant in out marketplace with and without government approval. Since the Regan admin, more consolidation occured than any time prior to the guilded age (1900s-20s when we began the practice by fracturing Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and the early robber-baron monopolies). The show-trials of MS and Google (to name a recent few) show just how little the modern government cares about market competition.
I'm kinda glad the government knows when to stfu. Let the market speak for itself. If people (customers, i.e. the market, i.e. all of us pretty much) are upset that Microsoft or Google are as large & controlling as they are, then we will reflect it by not using their products. If you contend that it'd be too hard, then it's pretty apparent you care more about convenience than standing up against what you consider an overpowered company.
It's great to let the market work itself. Just remember to have regulators (with power and without ties to those they regulate) or we will just ruin the Gulf of Mexico again. -.-;
If satellite is available in most of those places, that's an alternative. Awful or not, an alternative is an alternative. Also, satellite companies like Dish aren't really as awful as the hype says. Just like the nearly-no-longer-applicable logic behind burned in images on modern big screens, it's just not the issue (anymore) that it's still being hyped up to be.
As a TV source, sure. As an ISP, not really. Satellite upload speeds are technologically handicapped in a physical way. If you have a requirement of sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed, then satellite won't be an option and you'll have to either move or pay the monopoly for its service.
If satellite is available in most of those places, that's an alternative. Awful or not, an alternative is an alternative. Also, satellite companies like Dish aren't really as awful as the hype says. Just like the nearly-no-longer-applicable logic behind burned in images on modern big screens, it's just not the issue (anymore) that it's still being hyped up to be.
As a TV source, sure. As an ISP, not really. Satellite upload speeds are technologically handicapped in a physical way. If you have a requirement of sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed, then satellite won't be an option and you'll have to either move or pay the monopoly for its service.
you guys realize that internet can be given via radio waves at 10x the speed of cable? they've tested it, but it will be awhile until they can actually put it into common households. id give it another 10 years until cable becomes like dial up to radio waves
"eww you have cable? how do you wait 4 whole seconds for websites to load? or wait more then 20 seconds for blue ray videos to download?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
you guys realize that internet can be given via radio waves at 10x the speed of cable? they've tested it, but it will be awhile until they can actually put it into common households. id give it another 10 years until cable becomes like dial up to radio waves
"eww you have cable? how do you wait 4 whole seconds for websites to load? or wait more then 20 seconds for blue ray videos to download?"
That doesn't change the present market situation. Also, links or it didn't happen.
you guys realize that internet can be given via radio waves at 10x the speed of cable? they've tested it, but it will be awhile until they can actually put it into common households. id give it another 10 years until cable becomes like dial up to radio waves
"eww you have cable? how do you wait 4 whole seconds for websites to load? or wait more then 20 seconds for blue ray videos to download?"
That doesn't change the present market situation. Also, links or it didn't happen.
If satellite is available in most of those places, that's an alternative. Awful or not, an alternative is an alternative. Also, satellite companies like Dish aren't really as awful as the hype says. Just like the nearly-no-longer-applicable logic behind burned in images on modern big screens, it's just not the issue (anymore) that it's still being hyped up to be.
As a TV source, sure. As an ISP, not really. Satellite upload speeds are technologically handicapped in a physical way. If you have a requirement of sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed, then satellite won't be an option and you'll have to either move or pay the monopoly for its service.
It sounds to me like "sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed" is a very specific and therefore niche demographic. It's pretty outlandish to expect even the most specific niche requirements have competition.
If satellite is available in most of those places, that's an alternative. Awful or not, an alternative is an alternative. Also, satellite companies like Dish aren't really as awful as the hype says. Just like the nearly-no-longer-applicable logic behind burned in images on modern big screens, it's just not the issue (anymore) that it's still being hyped up to be.
As a TV source, sure. As an ISP, not really. Satellite upload speeds are technologically handicapped in a physical way. If you have a requirement of sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed, then satellite won't be an option and you'll have to either move or pay the monopoly for its service.
you guys realize that internet can be given via radio waves at 10x the speed of cable? they've tested it, but it will be awhile until they can actually put it into common households. id give it another 10 years until cable becomes like dial up to radio waves
"eww you have cable? how do you wait 4 whole seconds for websites to load? or wait more then 20 seconds for blue ray videos to download?"
I don't think I've read up on that very much, but it sure sounds neat. Maybe the U.S. won't be so far behind in worldwide internet speeds anymore? I doubt it, but I can always try and be optimistic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would a government condone... let alone make legal intellectual property theft? Downloading a pirated copy of a video game is the same as modding your Playstation and playing copied disks. You are using the software (therefore the service) without paying for it. You are recieving the same benefits (or close to it) as those of us that actually paid.
Making digital content (especially in the case of movies and video games) takes vast quantities of time and money. It takes capital to create consumer goods. Capital costs overhead. By not paying for the shit you download... you are stealing (unless the publisher makes it free). Plain and simple.
There is absolutely NO reason to make digital piracy legal. By doing that, there is no such thing as intellectual property rights and you just completely destroyed the incentive for a company to create digital goods. You just put Blizzard, Bioware, etc out of business.
Trusts. When a monopoly is shutdown and split, new companies form and trusts are formed between them generating mass revenue (due to being interconnected). This is what happened early on the automobile industry, the early telephone industry (whose split became AT&T, Verizon, etc.), and the railroad industry. Due to how anti-trust America is they deemed it better to reach an agreement with Microsoft rather than repeating another monopoly shutdown to prevent another trust fiasco.
1. You're mis-using the word trust. While it technically describes the kind of mono/oligarchic cartel found when competition has been crushed, the colloqualism you're applying here is trust-busting or the act of splitting those cartels down into fragments that cannot dominate the market.
2. There is not "mass revenue," generated when a monopoly is split and in-fact the share holders usually loose value.
3. Verizon was not a spin-off of AT&T, the baby-bells were the subsequent developments (although Bell Atlantic was parto of the emergent Verizon corp). The bust of the Morgan railroad cartel in the nort-east was a good example, but the railroad industry as a whole was not applied the same treatment. It enjoys a government-sustained cartel to this day.
4. America hasn't been strongly anti-trust in over a century. Oligopolies and Monopolies run rampant in out marketplace with and without government approval. Since the Regan admin, more consolidation occured than any time prior to the guilded age (1900s-20s when we began the practice by fracturing Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and the early robber-baron monopolies). The show-trials of MS and Google (to name a recent few) show just how little the modern government cares about market competition.
You know that just about all movies are filmed and edited on computers PRIOR to being released in theaters & put on DVDs? It's not costing extra money to have content online. The whole thought of making 'pirating' legal would make it so it's NOT theft... I guess the concept is hard for some people to wrap their minds around, but it would just be legal, so it wouldn't be theft.
Does no one notice that games (like CoD:MW3) have been continuously making INCREASING amounts of money as time goes by, even with all this 'terrible pirating' going on? Some people (hell, MOST people) would rather have a physical copy. Same concept with movies, a LOT of people would rather spend money in order to have a physical copy of the product they have.
I'm kinda glad the government knows when to stfu. Let the market speak for itself. If people (customers, i.e. the market, i.e. all of us pretty much) are upset that Microsoft or Google are as large & controlling as they are, then we will reflect it by not using their products. If you contend that it'd be too hard, then it's pretty apparent you care more about convenience than standing up against what you consider an overpowered company.
BTW 'you' doesn't refer to you in particular Proletaria. Didn't want anyone getting upset over a misunderstanding.
I've no doubt you weren't intending to upset me, but I'm going to offer you a little economics course because I feel you're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly or oligopoly does.
When a monopoly is in control of a market, consumers cannot choose to stop buying their products because competitors are not able to enter the marketplace. Suppose AT&T had persisted and been the only provider of telecommunications service in the US. Suppose you were tired of them and wanted to stop using their service. You would simply have to go without phone, internet, etc. You would be unable to do this without either 1. Using someone else's AT&T service or 2. Ending any hope of keeping a job that required you to have internet and phone communication access.
If, in a monopolized market, a competitor enters, the following happens:
1. Hostile take-over of the new company.
2. The existing monopoly uses it's market (and possibly government) control to bully it out of business.
3. The monopolizing entity simply operates at a loss until the new corp. is bankrupt because it can play long-term.
Nowhere in the monopoly scenario does the consumer have the power to change the market UNLESS the consumer group is able to completely do without the good or service being supplied by that monopoly. Obviously, in many scenarios that is no feasible.
This isn't bias in favor of taking down the "big bad corporations." This is bias in favor of keeping corporations competitive enough that they cannot forcibly control a market. Government-mandated monopolies exist solely because these industries are natural monopolies and even then the government is suppose to uphold consumer-conscious practices (they tend to do poorly at this now-a-days) so that the monopolist cannot take full advantage of their position and set up a profit-fleecing operation.
If you would like to know more, I have written at some length on the history of oligarchic industry and the US government (mostly from the early 20th century) and would be glad to fill you in on exactly why "trust-busting," and the rest of our regulating bodies came about. Contrary to popular belief, it was not big-government for government's sake. It may be a bit off-topic for this thread so feel free to PM me or get another thread going.
I'm just looking at it from an average-person point of view. The specific companies that were mentioned were Microsoft & Google. If you hate what Microsoft is doing, use LINX/UNIX/OS-whatever number you want. There are other options for operating systems. As far as Google, the exact same applies. Use Bing, Yahoo!, etc. Do not use youtube (which honestly isn't even a big thing to ask of someone) or any other sites/organizations Google has bought out. Also, buy an iPhone or a simple older type phone. As far as saying something like AT&T goes, there ARE competitors for phone service, and you DO NOT need internet. Big difference between need and really really want. I wouldn't mind hearing some other company that you think has a monopoly on a needed service.
I personally have mixed feelings on the whole "at what point does government step in" because with a PRIVATE business you really shouldn't ever have to have the government step in to keep you from expanding to whatever size, so long as you're not breaking any laws. The problem comes with laws that specifically try and keep companies under a glass ceiling. If you built your company up to be able to buy out all competition and quash competitors that try to compete against you, didn't you earn it? What happened to reaping what you sow, and not reaping what you sow unless you sowed
"too much" and intend on reaping every bit of what you put down?
Edit: Oh yeah, good point, we really should keep this on topic of this whole bill/petition issue.
There are competing companies for phone service because AT&T was broken up. As for not needing internet, I don't know what you do for a living, but my job (and it isn't even a tech job, i'm a professor) would not be doable today without ready access to the internet at work and at home. The existing monopolies are largely obvious: power companies in most regions are government sanctioned monopolies. They charged with providing their area with power for cost of production plus a given percentage in profit.
First off, anti-trust laws are just that: laws. They were created for a very good reason: to prevent markets from being dominated by singe players or a small number of colluding players at the expense of the consumer. A healthy market economy cannot sustain itself under the stress of monopolies in key industries without some kind of oversight. Some markets naturally trend towards smaller (or single) numbers of providers so either the government regulates them or they allow that provider to gain an unhealthy amount of power over the economy as a whole from their choke-point.
Doesn't the newer more innovative company earn something too? I think you're missing the functional premise behind a monopoly. Once the monopolist is in place, there is no room for innovation outside of that company. It is a closed circuit loop whereby nobody else can enter without their permission. If they decide to go full-profit (which makes the most sense, given they have no competitive reason to provide higher quality) and slash value, they can do that without worrying about loosing their hold on the market. All they have to do is continue a strangle-hold on their industry with hostile actions (which are perfectly legal in the absence of anti-trust laws).
The intent of a "free market," isn't to generate a first-come first-dominate forum for the biggest company to simple take over the whole economy. It is a place where companies are meant to compete with one another to provide the most efficient good or service possible. The moment a market becomes choked by an unregulated monopolist, efficiency flies out the window. If you fear a big-government intervention, you might consider the alternative is the exact same animal (a giant bureaucratic mess), except it isn't elected and has no duty to the people it serves. I think it's wise to question the actions of the government during such regulations, but the question of concept behind preventative trust-busting has been illustrated throughout our storied economic history.
Fake Edit: 1000 post count!
It's too late & I'm too exhausted to reply to all of your last message, but I did want to reply to this specific part. Congrats! Your 1000th post is followed swiftly by my 100th! Goodnight, and Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Comcast.
Bright House. So no, Comcast doesn't fall into that category. It has competition (other than just Bright House, I was just giving an example of 1).
Comcast/Bright House don't overlap everywhere. In-fact most providers have at least some region of monopoly on their service. The mitigating factor these days would be alternative sources of internet service like wireless/satellite (although wireless isn't available in all those places and satellite is an awful alternative).
If satellite is available in most of those places, that's an alternative. Awful or not, an alternative is an alternative. Also, satellite companies like Dish aren't really as awful as the hype says. Just like the nearly-no-longer-applicable logic behind burned in images on modern big screens, it's just not the issue (anymore) that it's still being hyped up to be.
Maybe you should read some more of my posts then. I am very much in favor of a government, just not a dictatorship. (Don't even get me started on religion.
If they block the IP address, then yes you are right, but most lawyers who have read this law are saying that the most likely route that they would take would simply be to block the www.whatever.com address, not the ip address.
They could easily block the IP address, however, and in that case you would be right.
I never said that things were natively copyrighted. I simply said they would go after websites that had the ability to share copyrighted material, like Youtube, or Diablofans, or Facebook.
Again, please read my posts. Please?
And my daddy can beat up your daddy, too!
The internet tough guy act hasn't worked for a long, long time. >.>
People either love me or hate me!
You know, new ideas and ways to tackle problems is always a good idea.
Quoted for truth.
It's great to let the market work itself. Just remember to have regulators (with power and without ties to those they regulate) or we will just ruin the Gulf of Mexico again. -.-;
In my town there are two garbage companies. There is Waste Management, then a City Ran garbage company.
The hilarious part? The City ran garbage is outsourced to Waste Management.
(Probably wrong use of outsourced, but you get the idea.)
But yea...shit sucks...
As a TV source, sure. As an ISP, not really. Satellite upload speeds are technologically handicapped in a physical way. If you have a requirement of sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed, then satellite won't be an option and you'll have to either move or pay the monopoly for its service.
you guys realize that internet can be given via radio waves at 10x the speed of cable? they've tested it, but it will be awhile until they can actually put it into common households. id give it another 10 years until cable becomes like dial up to radio waves
"eww you have cable? how do you wait 4 whole seconds for websites to load? or wait more then 20 seconds for blue ray videos to download?"
That doesn't change the present market situation. Also, links or it didn't happen.
true, but who cares about now? THE FUTURE IS NOW!
heres one thing i could find but i know theres more out there, just gurgled it real quick. http://discovermagazine.com/2011/oct/13-twisting-radio-waves-100x-more-wireless-bandwidth
at this point its not in practice but this is def the future!
It sounds to me like "sending AND recieving data online at a competetive speed" is a very specific and therefore niche demographic. It's pretty outlandish to expect even the most specific niche requirements have competition.
I don't think I've read up on that very much, but it sure sounds neat. Maybe the U.S. won't be so far behind in worldwide internet speeds anymore? I doubt it, but I can always try and be optimistic.