5 ms·

I would not be too surprised if action were taken to create a new law which makes it illegal for content creators to sell content directly to consumers. Such l

I would not be too surprised if action were taken to create a new law which makes it illegal for content creators to sell content directly to consumers. Such laws already exist that prevent car manufacturers from selling directly to the public, and they exist for no reason other than to create an artificial market in which car dealerships can pretend to offer a valuable service. Content distributors are now in the same position. They need to have an artificial market constructed to make it look like they are doing something of value. Consider the viewpoint of a typical person in power today. They see these gigantic social institutions that provide a measurable portion of the nations GDP which might soon be torn apart and replaced by a decentralized, unorganized system with unknown economic value. Much of the history that they believe is worth knowing consists of the creation of massive centralized systems to aggregate supply and demand to solve the problem of distribution (both physical distribution of product and logistical distribution of work). To them, a move to a system where content creators distribute and sell directly to consumers is, at best, a horrifying step backwards. The first step to making sure content creators can't sell directly to consumers, of course, is to insert themselves in the new means of distribution in order to wedge the old distributors into some new place created for them.

Hoff 14y ago
Economic Analysis Group Competition Advocacy Paper by Gerald R. Bodisch, US DoJ Antitrust division http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm
tptacek 14y ago
Exactly how do you propose that any statute could be devised to forbid the sale of "content" to consumers? If you can do that, you can just as easily forbid the sale of anything colored blue, or of books containing the word "prickleberry". The Constitution has something to say about that. If you're going to argue that the content industry --- which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way --- is so powerful that it can simply disregard the Constitution, what's left to argue about? Here, allow me to win the resulting debate: "the content industry is going to get a law passed that will establish the death penalty for piracy". Oh no!
- chaostheory 14y ago
  > The Constitution has something to say about that. It has some say, but lately it's been repeatedly ignored. > which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way Unfortunately, I feel that the content industry lobbies way more than the Internet industry as a whole. This is slowly changing, but we still give far less political contributions than they do.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, then what's to argue with? If they can do that, they can do anything. Disney can charge you not only for copying Mickey Mouse, but for also for simply having mice in your house.
    - chaostheory 14y ago
      > If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, I didn't say that. I was implying that the gov can, and it has been. Guess who lobbies the gov with more money?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Nobody is going to pass a law outlawing the direct sale of "content" to consumers. That was an extremely silly argument.
        chaostheory 14y ago
        You never know. With the current trend being the sale of licenses and not the actual content, maybe one day in the future people can only sell licenses through approved license sellers. If you think that's ridiculous, what do you think people 50 years ago would think of what's happened to our airports? It's not that far fetched unless one thing changes: techies as a whole start lobbying harder and with more money.

Hoff 14y ago

Economic Analysis Group Competition Advocacy Paper by Gerald R. Bodisch, US DoJ Antitrust division http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm

tptacek 14y ago

Exactly how do you propose that any statute could be devised to forbid the sale of "content" to consumers? If you can do that, you can just as easily forbid the sale of anything colored blue, or of books containing the word "prickleberry". The Constitution has something to say about that. If you're going to argue that the content industry --- which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way --- is so powerful that it can simply disregard the Constitution, what's left to argue about? Here, allow me to win the resulting debate: "the content industry is going to get a law passed that will establish the death penalty for piracy". Oh no!

chaostheory 14y ago
> The Constitution has something to say about that. It has some say, but lately it's been repeatedly ignored. > which is significantly smaller than the Internet industry, by the way Unfortunately, I feel that the content industry lobbies way more than the Internet industry as a whole. This is slowly changing, but we still give far less political contributions than they do.
- tptacek 14y ago
  If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, then what's to argue with? If they can do that, they can do anything. Disney can charge you not only for copying Mickey Mouse, but for also for simply having mice in your house.
  - chaostheory 14y ago
    > If you're going to say the content industry can ignore the Constitution, I didn't say that. I was implying that the gov can, and it has been. Guess who lobbies the gov with more money?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Nobody is going to pass a law outlawing the direct sale of "content" to consumers. That was an extremely silly argument.
      - chaostheory 14y ago
        You never know. With the current trend being the sale of licenses and not the actual content, maybe one day in the future people can only sell licenses through approved license sellers. If you think that's ridiculous, what do you think people 50 years ago would think of what's happened to our airports? It's not that far fetched unless one thing changes: techies as a whole start lobbying harder and with more money.