-_-;;

[edg]

Sharman also claimed that movie studios "dominate and, when they act in concert, have monopoly power" for the aftermarket distribution of first-run major motion pictures. Likewise, the company said, recording labels "when they act in concert, have monopoly power in the distribution of recorded music."

Because, you know, when you're the only one making something, you still have to let everybody else distribute it, or you're a monopoly. Right?

Right?

I'm honestly not quite sure where to stand on this issue. I believe that the people who make music and films should be allowed to be paid for it, and that the people who produce music and films should be allowed to recoup their costs, but I think the recording and movie industries are going a little far in "recouping their costs", and I think a lot of music and films these days are being made simply for the love of money.

However, I do know where I stand regarding the Sharman/KaZaA countersuit: it ought to be thrown out. Sharman's lawyers don't seem to understand the concept of a monopoly very well. Now, if what Sharman means is that - to use one example out of two - the recording industry, "when it acts in concert", has the ability to bludgeon its way over anyone standing in its way, then yes, that's probably true - but that's not what a monopoly is.

Comments

[cherrypep.livejournal.com]

That's true, it's more a cartel than a monopoly per se. Although I guess that does therefore mean that the resulting cartel has a monopoly. Maybe.

Me, I kind of figure that people who create do deserve to get paid, of course; but in my admittedly untutored opinion as a bit of a non-Arts And Humanities type... hmm, how do I say this?

Well, music matters, and so do films, and so does literature. They matter because of what they represent to the human race, as cultural artifacts or what have you. In other words, you or I wouldn't see the world the same way without this stuff. Our entire framing of the world is built around our (shared, to some extent) information resources.

Without bothering to get into a topic that I can rant about for hours on end, and indeed have done frequently in the past, I might just say "Man does not live on bread alone". Nor woman, I mean, obviously. The point being that whilst I appreciate the perspective that says "I make something, I get paid for it", I also appreciate that there is a potentially valid perspective that the information on which our understanding, society and various other wossnames are based, is an important resource and should be treated with some reverence. Rather than, say, price-fixed beyond the budget of the target audience.

Which, obviously, you know. And Sharman's lot don't, particularly, intend to argue this way - I think their point is just that if you indulge in price fixing then sooner or later the so-called public is going to find another way round the bottleneck, which is basically obvious but which I don't see the point of, in legal terms. But then I'm not a lawyer, so I dunno. Myself, I just think that you can't stand in the way of the motion of something as ethereal as information (though you can charge for it, quite easily if you avoid showing it up-front; see phone bills, tv licences, blank media tax for details), and if you do, the nature of the beast requires that you eventually reveal yourself to be fundamentally in the business of being something of a Thought Police. Even though that probably wasn't your intention. Property is one thing, status symbol or convenient carriage or what have you, but information is thought. Not that I'd take that idea to court.

Now I should probably shut up before the Ex Dot Com Hippie Police take me away.

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll try to keep my comments on this brief and to the point. But I will be happy to expand on my views by way of email.

The entertainment industry has a way of forecasting doom, gloom and bankruptcy with the introduction of new technology. One only has to remember the invention of the VCR and the lawsuit filed to prove my point.

I do not appreciate being treated (or referred to as) a thief. I dislike the fact that the RIAA is demanding the right to break into people's computers to delete files without being held accountable for their actions.

If piracy of songs and movies is such a concern, why not turn that to their advantage? Allow people to go to music company sites and download what they want, charge a REASONABLE fee per song (20-30 cents) and enjoy the benefits? If they refuse to make available what conusmers want, they have no right to be surprised that people will find a way around it.

Yes, artists of any stripe deserve to be compensated for their work. Why not allow them to be paid directly?