4 ms·

this means that amazon will have about 4% of the industry this isn't even slightly a monopoly by the legal definition

afavour 5y ago
OP didn't even use the word monopoly. You don't have to view it through that narrow a lens. I think it's fair to ask if it is in consumers interest to have to buy an Apple TV to watch Apple produced shows, an Amazon Fire stick to watch Amazon/MGM content, etc. etc. I know that isn't the world we're in right now but the spats you see between e.g. Google and Roku (and Amazon and Google) feel indicative of a likely future to me: consolidate, then bring down the hammer.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The world I used to live in required paying a third party to watch media, from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted.
  - afavour 5y ago
    Does that mean we shouldn't ever strive for better? > from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted. That's still quite possible in the future. If providers lock down the hardware you can use to watch then maybe you won't be able to watch on your phone if they don't feel like letting you.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      My point was that we did strive for better, and I can now watch whatever I want whenever I want however I want, for 90% of things. For the rest, like sports and some other live stuff that is stuck in the past, I simply ignore. I would not go after legislation to prevent mergers to prevent locked down devices or restrictions on how you can watch. We already had that without the mergers, so why would that address the situation? If the point is to keep the content flowing far and wide, then that should be addressed directly.
      - afavour 5y ago
        It doesn't sound like we disagree. Why couldn't the FEC allow the merger with a mandate that content be available on all (or a reasonable number of) platforms?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I think half measures can hurt more than they benefit, due to it being used politically as an excuse to not address the root issue by claiming it was already addressed. The root issue here is excessive copyright terms. Those are the source of the monopoly. We already solved the distribution problem with the internet, now it’s a political issue of reducing copyright lengths. Any other solution will be used by politicians as an excuse to show they did something, or that nothing more needs to be done. Who cares who buys what once the content is in the public domain. It is a cleaner, resilient, and quicker solution. Also, it seems unfair that government would be able to dictate what Amazon can and cannot do with its content, but not others, so that is another political fight that can waste time and energy.
        afavour 5y ago
        > The root issue here is excessive copyright terms. Not really. That's an issue, certainly. But the consolidation of media ownership into companies that control the entire process from production to the hardware video is played on has very little to do with how long back catalogues retain copyright protection.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Why else would the SEC or the FTC be involved? This isn't rent seeking. That phrase is becoming much too popular with the Apple store debacle.
  - afavour 5y ago
    The FTC exists to protect the interests of consumers. They're not just the "Anti-Monopoly Commission".
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      The FEC only gets involved over specific things. If you want the FEC to be involved, you have to be able to say why they're involved. Instead of giving a feel good story about what you imagine they're for, please provide an FTC-appropriate vision of what they could get involved over It'd be like if I knocked a chair over, and you said "I'm calling the police," and I said "why would the police get involved," and you said "the police are there to protect us and our families." That's nice. What is the specific basis on which the FTC would get involved in this, please?
      - afavour 5y ago
        "The FEC only gets involved over specific things." On what basis? Legal restriction or historical precedent? This is how we get timid regulation, by never moving beyond what has gone before. "The basic statute enforced by the FTC, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, empowers the agency to investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This creates the Agency’s two primary missions: protecting competition and protecting consumers. The statute gives the FTC authority to seek relief for consumers, including injunctions and restitution, and in some instances to seek civil penalties from wrongdoers. The FTC has the ability to implement trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive and the Commission can publish reports and make legislative recommendations to Congress about issues affecting the economy. The Commission enforces various antitrust laws under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act as well as the Clayton Act. The FTC monitors all its orders to ensure compliance." https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/what-ftc-does https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/what-ftc-doe... Your comparison is a little absurd. If the police had a specific role in investigating and preventing unfair chair usage than calling the police would seem like a very logical course of action. In this case, the FTC has a clear role in preventing unfair methods of competition. Huge media conglomerates closing out access to smaller competitors via the software and hardware consumers use to watch TV could certainly be considered unfair.

OP didn't even use the word monopoly. You don't have to view it through that narrow a lens. I think it's fair to ask if it is in consumers interest to have to buy an Apple TV to watch Apple produced shows, an Amazon Fire stick to watch Amazon/MGM content, etc. etc. I know that isn't the world we're in right now but the spats you see between e.g. Google and Roku (and Amazon and Google) feel indicative of a likely future to me: consolidate, then bring down the hammer.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The world I used to live in required paying a third party to watch media, from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted.
- afavour 5y ago
  Does that mean we shouldn't ever strive for better? > from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted. That's still quite possible in the future. If providers lock down the hardware you can use to watch then maybe you won't be able to watch on your phone if they don't feel like letting you.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    My point was that we did strive for better, and I can now watch whatever I want whenever I want however I want, for 90% of things. For the rest, like sports and some other live stuff that is stuck in the past, I simply ignore. I would not go after legislation to prevent mergers to prevent locked down devices or restrictions on how you can watch. We already had that without the mergers, so why would that address the situation? If the point is to keep the content flowing far and wide, then that should be addressed directly.
    - afavour 5y ago
      It doesn't sound like we disagree. Why couldn't the FEC allow the merger with a mandate that content be available on all (or a reasonable number of) platforms?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I think half measures can hurt more than they benefit, due to it being used politically as an excuse to not address the root issue by claiming it was already addressed. The root issue here is excessive copyright terms. Those are the source of the monopoly. We already solved the distribution problem with the internet, now it’s a political issue of reducing copyright lengths. Any other solution will be used by politicians as an excuse to show they did something, or that nothing more needs to be done. Who cares who buys what once the content is in the public domain. It is a cleaner, resilient, and quicker solution. Also, it seems unfair that government would be able to dictate what Amazon can and cannot do with its content, but not others, so that is another political fight that can waste time and energy.
        afavour 5y ago
        > The root issue here is excessive copyright terms. Not really. That's an issue, certainly. But the consolidation of media ownership into companies that control the entire process from production to the hardware video is played on has very little to do with how long back catalogues retain copyright protection.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Why else would the SEC or the FTC be involved? This isn't rent seeking. That phrase is becoming much too popular with the Apple store debacle.
- afavour 5y ago
  The FTC exists to protect the interests of consumers. They're not just the "Anti-Monopoly Commission".
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    The FEC only gets involved over specific things. If you want the FEC to be involved, you have to be able to say why they're involved. Instead of giving a feel good story about what you imagine they're for, please provide an FTC-appropriate vision of what they could get involved over It'd be like if I knocked a chair over, and you said "I'm calling the police," and I said "why would the police get involved," and you said "the police are there to protect us and our families." That's nice. What is the specific basis on which the FTC would get involved in this, please?
    - afavour 5y ago
      "The FEC only gets involved over specific things." On what basis? Legal restriction or historical precedent? This is how we get timid regulation, by never moving beyond what has gone before. "The basic statute enforced by the FTC, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, empowers the agency to investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This creates the Agency’s two primary missions: protecting competition and protecting consumers. The statute gives the FTC authority to seek relief for consumers, including injunctions and restitution, and in some instances to seek civil penalties from wrongdoers. The FTC has the ability to implement trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive and the Commission can publish reports and make legislative recommendations to Congress about issues affecting the economy. The Commission enforces various antitrust laws under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act as well as the Clayton Act. The FTC monitors all its orders to ensure compliance." https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/what-ftc-does https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/what-ftc-doe... Your comparison is a little absurd. If the police had a specific role in investigating and preventing unfair chair usage than calling the police would seem like a very logical course of action. In this case, the FTC has a clear role in preventing unfair methods of competition. Huge media conglomerates closing out access to smaller competitors via the software and hardware consumers use to watch TV could certainly be considered unfair.