5 ms·

Oligopoly is also bad.

scarface74 7y ago
So how many major studios do you feel are appropriate? Once again, despite the opinions of HN, the definition of a monopoly is not “a company does something I don’t like”. As I said previously, there is nothing stopping anyone from distributing content via a multitude of channels.
- thebooktocome 7y ago
  My gut feeling is that the largest player in any market should control less than five percent of it. So, more than twenty?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So now we want to pass a regulation that any company that has a market of more than 5% should be broken up? Then how do you define a market? It amazes me how many people trust the government and want more government power.
    - thebooktocome 7y ago
      Existing antitrust law. It amazes me how many people trust corporations and want more corporate power.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        And what do they have “power” over? Movie creation? Movie distribution? What part of the antitrust law are the five movie studios breaking? What “power” do they have? The difference between corporate power and government power is that a corporation can’t forcible take your money, property and liberty. I can choose whether to give my money to a corporation. I can’t choose whether to give my money to the government. A corporation has a lot less “power” than the government. If a corporation makes a decision I don’t like, I don’t give them my money. I don’t have that choice with the government.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  The definition of "monopoly" doesn't matter that much though. What matters is whether new players can realistically enter a market and compete on merit. That's what creates incentives for innovation and low prices. I agree with you that the film industry itself doesn't currently have a monopoly or oligopoly problem, especially not internationally. But the fact that there are huge problems in related areas of digital content distribution and discovery (app stores, search, social networks, network operators specifically in the US) is cause for alarm in my view. The problem is spreading rapidly and it wouldn't be a surprise if the film industry was one of the next victims.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Digital content distribution - as far as movies, music, and books anyone can put up a website, provision some servers and sell content in standardized formats that can be consumed anywhere. Search - nothing is stopping anyone from going to other search engines. It’s not like Bing is backed by one or two people with no financial backing. Social networking - the social networks pre- Facebook failed because people chose a better experience. On none of those cases are corporations forcing people to do anything nor or any of them essential services for which there is no alternative. And the “definition” does matter. Once people in power can make up their own definitions it leads to government overreach.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      It doesn't matter what people could do in purely technical terms. What matters is whether there is an economically viable way to enter a market and create real competition. It's not a theoretical question. It has to actually happen for the benefits of free markets to accrue. Currently, that seems unrealistic in some areas like app stores where you can see egregious misuse of dominant market positions. It's ineffective in other areas like social networks because all new market entrants are swiftly taken over by incumbents without any resistance by regulators. The definition of monopoly is important in some respects but not for the question of whether or not we can reap the benefits of markets or suffer the consequences of dysfunctional markets. It doesn't take a clearcut monopoly to render a market dysfunctional. (I'm not sure which people in power you are talking about)

So how many major studios do you feel are appropriate? Once again, despite the opinions of HN, the definition of a monopoly is not “a company does something I don’t like”. As I said previously, there is nothing stopping anyone from distributing content via a multitude of channels.

thebooktocome 7y ago
My gut feeling is that the largest player in any market should control less than five percent of it. So, more than twenty?
- scarface74 7y ago
  So now we want to pass a regulation that any company that has a market of more than 5% should be broken up? Then how do you define a market? It amazes me how many people trust the government and want more government power.
  - thebooktocome 7y ago
    Existing antitrust law. It amazes me how many people trust corporations and want more corporate power.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And what do they have “power” over? Movie creation? Movie distribution? What part of the antitrust law are the five movie studios breaking? What “power” do they have? The difference between corporate power and government power is that a corporation can’t forcible take your money, property and liberty. I can choose whether to give my money to a corporation. I can’t choose whether to give my money to the government. A corporation has a lot less “power” than the government. If a corporation makes a decision I don’t like, I don’t give them my money. I don’t have that choice with the government.
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
The definition of "monopoly" doesn't matter that much though. What matters is whether new players can realistically enter a market and compete on merit. That's what creates incentives for innovation and low prices. I agree with you that the film industry itself doesn't currently have a monopoly or oligopoly problem, especially not internationally. But the fact that there are huge problems in related areas of digital content distribution and discovery (app stores, search, social networks, network operators specifically in the US) is cause for alarm in my view. The problem is spreading rapidly and it wouldn't be a surprise if the film industry was one of the next victims.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Digital content distribution - as far as movies, music, and books anyone can put up a website, provision some servers and sell content in standardized formats that can be consumed anywhere. Search - nothing is stopping anyone from going to other search engines. It’s not like Bing is backed by one or two people with no financial backing. Social networking - the social networks pre- Facebook failed because people chose a better experience. On none of those cases are corporations forcing people to do anything nor or any of them essential services for which there is no alternative. And the “definition” does matter. Once people in power can make up their own definitions it leads to government overreach.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    It doesn't matter what people could do in purely technical terms. What matters is whether there is an economically viable way to enter a market and create real competition. It's not a theoretical question. It has to actually happen for the benefits of free markets to accrue. Currently, that seems unrealistic in some areas like app stores where you can see egregious misuse of dominant market positions. It's ineffective in other areas like social networks because all new market entrants are swiftly taken over by incumbents without any resistance by regulators. The definition of monopoly is important in some respects but not for the question of whether or not we can reap the benefits of markets or suffer the consequences of dysfunctional markets. It doesn't take a clearcut monopoly to render a market dysfunctional. (I'm not sure which people in power you are talking about)