3 ms·
Copyright, by definition, is a monopoly. You are confusing licenced distributors with the copyright owner where the actual monopoly is. Each of those don't indi
by snapplebobapple 3y ago
Copyright, by definition, is a monopoly. You are confusing licenced distributors with the copyright owner where the actual monopoly is. Each of those don't individually distribute all content because copyright holders use their monopoly to limit distribution
- scarface_74 3y agoThat’s not by any reasonable definition a “monopoly” any more than saying I have a “monopoly” on my posts. And either way, monopoly or not is irrelevant. If the writers weren’t able to get a fair deal because their was only one studio or distributor it would be a monopsony
- snapplebobapple 3y agoThe definition of monopoly from econlib: A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service. The definition of a copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, etc an original work for a set period of time. It may include one or more additional rights depending on jurisdiction. So by definition a copyright holder is the only seller of a creative work, aka they have a monopoly on that works public usage, which is very broadly defined. I mean, you can draw your own conclusion but if you expect me to believe you aren't drawing with crayons you need to retract your previous statement. Side note: what makes you think the writers own the copyright on their work? Generally they don't especially if they are paid to write something rather than presenting a finished work to multiple studios trying to sell it. You do havr the general definition of monopsony close to right but it had nothing to do with whether another part of the value chain is a monopoly, you can have both or many instances of both along a dingle products value chain.