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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-29 10:20 am (UTC)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.