When companies are inefficient for a long time, it's usually because they managed to prevent competition. In this case, they successfully managed to bully the w

When companies are inefficient for a long time, it's usually because they managed to prevent competition. In this case, they successfully managed to bully the whole world, using the US government, into adopting rules created by US companies. (The idea that a sovereign country - say India - is forced to police 1.5 billion people to make sure they don't use Mickey Mouse in ways that would upset a company in a foreign country is insane. We don't normally care if people in Nigeria cook their leftovers in ways that upset a famous Italian pizzeria.) --- Every time you find a problem with capitalism, stop and look again: you will find state intervention in the market, which is the opposite of capitalism. (Free trade between the involved parties, without the intervention of others.) In this case, the problem starts at the root: copyright is by definition a state intervention in the market. It cannot exist in a free market, because it mandates that someone prevents you from using your own resources as you see fit (namely, copying a DVD you own on a computer you own, using electricity you're paying for). Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" is probably the best resource point out the contradiction between Imaginary Property and the free market.