Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (24)
-
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Comedian is to human as satirist is divine
-
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Comedian is to human as satirist is divine
-
Senator Ron Wyden To The Internet: Thank You For Speaking Up… But We're Not Done Yet
Re:
Either, or... problems
Just so people get the point, in formal logic, the logical connective "or" follows this truth table:
P | Q P v Q
T | T. T T T
T | F. T T F
F | T. F T F
F | F. F F F
The inclusive "or" was used. Which means (unlike "and") that "either profits or halting copyright infringement" is a correct use, as it could be the case that both are true. Moreover, it is appropriate to ask what is the final goal of a corporation or group of content owners.
The objective (given evidence by content rights holders) appears to be an overall increase of control over the marketplace. Lawrence Lessig writes regularly on this issue. By controlling the market for content they have created a monopoly or olligopoly. Content distributors have in the 100 year history of mass media (first in movie distribution, then the recording business, now everything) continued to create a monopolistic market with the intent at collusion. Their objective is to price fix through non-communicatory relations. They are forbidden to "collude" as an industry directly, but indirectly, just like Superpacks, they can look at the screens and set prices according to who is successfully selling for the most.
By having total control over the marketplace, distributors are able to prohibit individual content creators from entering the market and break their price fixing through a new source of supply. Content distributors do not want a saturated market as that means value is returned to the consumer.
In microeconomics, pure competition maximizes social welfare, the balance between supply and demand--a shaded area between the price and quantity of a product a consumer will by at that price given any particular supply and demand curve. Pure compstition lowers the overall price of content to its lowest possible level (in theory) thereby maximizing the society's ability to buy products for a lower price--more for less. This is where we get the idea that capitalism promotes a better outcome.
However, firms will do everything possible to hault this--firms in the media model are distributors who do not inherently create content but at a time gave artists access to means to produce content, and then took that content, providing a fractional sliver of the profit pie. This creates a monopolistic effect. If artists want to make any money, they must go through the established content distributors. That's why it is better to come in second on American Idol. You are locked into a distribution contract.
The true relationship here is "OPEN" vs "CLOSED" markets. The industry of content distributors would want it "closed" to maximize their profits, while artists would want distributors functioning in an "open" market structure, thereby minimizing cost to entry, and allowing those artists who have talent to become profitable based upon the number of people capable of saturating the market.
The problem with this is that the market could become oversaturated (i.e. what would happen to the diamond market if De Beers was broken up and supply made competitive) and prices might drop substantially as consumers realize how many artists of great talent exist. Then again, there might not be that many. Only the market can decide.
Content distributors cannot take a huge cut of an artist's royalties and personal profit in an open market, because the artist can simply go to someone else.
That's some of the problem in a nutshell. Ergo, content distributors will do whatever it takes--up to an including breaking our system of government--to keep the markets closed.