4 ms·

An "association" of (aspiring) monopolistic rent seekers is == Cartel. Ie, they are seeking to control supply side economics through limited distribution. etc.

by 001sky 14y ago

An "association" of (aspiring) monopolistic rent seekers is == Cartel. Ie, they are seeking to control supply side economics through limited distribution. etc. [1] Obviously, Copyrights are legally granted monopolies.

rayiner 14y ago
Neither "rent seeking" nor "cartel" nor "monopolistic" means what you seem to think it means. Rent seeking is defined as trying to profit from activity that would've happened anyway without you. Since Meltwater is excerpting articles written by AP affiliates, the AP cannot be rent seeking in this case because without them the articles in question would not exist. "Monopolistic" usually refers to entities that have a monopoly on a particular kind of good. AP affiliates have no monopoly on news. Their copyright over their original content is a "legally granted monopoly" but in the sense that any property right is a legally granted monopoly. I'm not engaging in "monopolistic" practices because the government grants me a legal monopoly over my back yard. You're essentially punning on the word "monopoly." E.g. AMD has a monopoly on "Opteron" processors but is not a "monopoly" because it doesn't control the supply of processors. "Cartel" is an organization of companies who control the supply of a type of good colluding to fix prices for that good. AP does not control the supply of news and hence cannot be a cartel.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how much of the "criticism" aimed at copyright depends on massive distortion of otherwise well-defined words. Refusing to pay your rent to a property management company on the grounds that they're a rent-seeking cartel exercising monopolistic control over "your" apartment is not astute economic analysis. Rather, it's the mark of a (soon to be evicted) idiot. Lambasting the creator and owner of an intellectual property for running a commercial operation to recover his costs and produce a profit is the same thing. And before anyone insists that "copies are different" and "making isn't taking", it's worth remembering that the bone of contention isn't in the copies. It's in the money that's not changing hands after the copy has been made. Economically speaking, digital media may be a special case in that units have zero marginal cost. But we don't throw up our hands and say "oh well, that's the end of professionally produced media." Instead, we recognize the inability of free markets to meet all our needs, realize that laws also play a vital role in advanced societies, and create exclusive and legally protected terms and conditions under which creators can safely exploit their work. And while it's true that major publishers routinely display cartel-like behavior in their negotiations with artists, it's ridiculous to say that they maintain any kind of industry-wide monopoly with regard to the general public. Indeed, anyone working in these businesses can tell you how fiercely you need to compete to win public favor. It's no OPEC, that's for sure.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    massive distortion of otherwise well-defined words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent You may want to re-check your work.
    - lazylizard 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking more specific
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Specifically not on point....the qualification at the beginning in particular.
- 001sky 14y ago
  What allows for "control the supply"? You can have either physical possession amid physical scarcity (ie, saudie arabia/opec vs oil) or legal means of exclusion amid infitite propogation (ie, abstract possesion of an abstract good). Copyright is necessary but not sufficient step to make a business of the latter. You're implying AP is a failed cartel...and in this yes, you are right. But this also points out why it is being faught for. The quesion is: why is it interesting? And not just a failure...
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Control of supply requires not just a monopoly over some good, but a monopoly over some good that isn't easily fungible. That's why AMD isn't a "monopoly" despite having a monopoly on Opteron processors, or why ARM vendors aren't a cartel despite ARM having a monopoly on ARM processors. Both are easily replaced with competing products. AP only has a monopoly over articles it's affiliated write--but that is a fingible good,messily replaced by news articles from say Reuters.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Agree, but your re-wording the notion of scarcity. you actually can control things that there is limited/tepid demand for. but this is confusing rent-seeking with rent-extracting. eg. in this example: it can be equally true AP is a failed rent extractor, but (is still) an active rent seeker. There is no contradiction.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Defining the product in question to encompass only AP's content is ridiculous. It's like saying AMD is rent seeking because it controls the supply of Opteron processors.
      - alexqgb 14y ago
        Let's add "rent seeking" to the list of terms you've failed to properly understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking You'll note that the defining characteristic of rent seeking behavior is the effort to avoid producing new and valuable work by expending resources petitioning for changes in the regulatory environment instead (e.g. diverting resources from the production of new movies to lobby for retroactive extensions of copyright protection on old movies). In other words, it has a precise, limited meaning and is not a fancy term for "just wanting to charge rent in general". AP going to court to enforce existing laws protecting new work is pretty much the opposite of rent seeking behavior in that (a) they're spending resources to operate within the existing regulatory framework, not petitioning to alter it in their favor and (b) they're doing so in conjunction with the production of new (and presumably) economically valuable work.
- icebraining 14y ago
  You're essentially punning on the word "monopoly." Not that it makes it right, but it should be noted that Thomas Jefferson called them "monopolies" as well when discussing the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Right, but the sense of the two usages of the word is different (hence punning). Every property right is a monopoly. But when we talk about monopolies in the sense of cartels, there has to be some control over non-fungible supply. E.g. Every oil producing country has a monopoly over its own oil. That's the monopoly inherent in a property right. But that's not what makes them cartels. What makes them cartels is that together they control 70% of world supply, of a good for which there is no easy substitute.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      But Thomas Jefferson considered copyright a monopoly unlike other property rights, since he was concerned about allowing any monopoly, yet he obviously wasn't talking about abolishing private property.

by 001sky 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

Neither "rent seeking" nor "cartel" nor "monopolistic" means what you seem to think it means. Rent seeking is defined as trying to profit from activity that would've happened anyway without you. Since Meltwater is excerpting articles written by AP affiliates, the AP cannot be rent seeking in this case because without them the articles in question would not exist. "Monopolistic" usually refers to entities that have a monopoly on a particular kind of good. AP affiliates have no monopoly on news. Their copyright over their original content is a "legally granted monopoly" but in the sense that any property right is a legally granted monopoly. I'm not engaging in "monopolistic" practices because the government grants me a legal monopoly over my back yard. You're essentially punning on the word "monopoly." E.g. AMD has a monopoly on "Opteron" processors but is not a "monopoly" because it doesn't control the supply of processors. "Cartel" is an organization of companies who control the supply of a type of good colluding to fix prices for that good. AP does not control the supply of news and hence cannot be a cartel.

alexqgb 14y ago
Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how much of the "criticism" aimed at copyright depends on massive distortion of otherwise well-defined words. Refusing to pay your rent to a property management company on the grounds that they're a rent-seeking cartel exercising monopolistic control over "your" apartment is not astute economic analysis. Rather, it's the mark of a (soon to be evicted) idiot. Lambasting the creator and owner of an intellectual property for running a commercial operation to recover his costs and produce a profit is the same thing. And before anyone insists that "copies are different" and "making isn't taking", it's worth remembering that the bone of contention isn't in the copies. It's in the money that's not changing hands after the copy has been made. Economically speaking, digital media may be a special case in that units have zero marginal cost. But we don't throw up our hands and say "oh well, that's the end of professionally produced media." Instead, we recognize the inability of free markets to meet all our needs, realize that laws also play a vital role in advanced societies, and create exclusive and legally protected terms and conditions under which creators can safely exploit their work. And while it's true that major publishers routinely display cartel-like behavior in their negotiations with artists, it's ridiculous to say that they maintain any kind of industry-wide monopoly with regard to the general public. Indeed, anyone working in these businesses can tell you how fiercely you need to compete to win public favor. It's no OPEC, that's for sure.
- 001sky 14y ago
  massive distortion of otherwise well-defined words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent You may want to re-check your work.
  - lazylizard 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking more specific
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Specifically not on point....the qualification at the beginning in particular.
001sky 14y ago
What allows for "control the supply"? You can have either physical possession amid physical scarcity (ie, saudie arabia/opec vs oil) or legal means of exclusion amid infitite propogation (ie, abstract possesion of an abstract good). Copyright is necessary but not sufficient step to make a business of the latter. You're implying AP is a failed cartel...and in this yes, you are right. But this also points out why it is being faught for. The quesion is: why is it interesting? And not just a failure...
- rayiner 14y ago
  Control of supply requires not just a monopoly over some good, but a monopoly over some good that isn't easily fungible. That's why AMD isn't a "monopoly" despite having a monopoly on Opteron processors, or why ARM vendors aren't a cartel despite ARM having a monopoly on ARM processors. Both are easily replaced with competing products. AP only has a monopoly over articles it's affiliated write--but that is a fingible good,messily replaced by news articles from say Reuters.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Agree, but your re-wording the notion of scarcity. you actually can control things that there is limited/tepid demand for. but this is confusing rent-seeking with rent-extracting. eg. in this example: it can be equally true AP is a failed rent extractor, but (is still) an active rent seeker. There is no contradiction.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Defining the product in question to encompass only AP's content is ridiculous. It's like saying AMD is rent seeking because it controls the supply of Opteron processors.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      Let's add "rent seeking" to the list of terms you've failed to properly understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking You'll note that the defining characteristic of rent seeking behavior is the effort to avoid producing new and valuable work by expending resources petitioning for changes in the regulatory environment instead (e.g. diverting resources from the production of new movies to lobby for retroactive extensions of copyright protection on old movies). In other words, it has a precise, limited meaning and is not a fancy term for "just wanting to charge rent in general". AP going to court to enforce existing laws protecting new work is pretty much the opposite of rent seeking behavior in that (a) they're spending resources to operate within the existing regulatory framework, not petitioning to alter it in their favor and (b) they're doing so in conjunction with the production of new (and presumably) economically valuable work.
icebraining 14y ago
You're essentially punning on the word "monopoly." Not that it makes it right, but it should be noted that Thomas Jefferson called them "monopolies" as well when discussing the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Right, but the sense of the two usages of the word is different (hence punning). Every property right is a monopoly. But when we talk about monopolies in the sense of cartels, there has to be some control over non-fungible supply. E.g. Every oil producing country has a monopoly over its own oil. That's the monopoly inherent in a property right. But that's not what makes them cartels. What makes them cartels is that together they control 70% of world supply, of a good for which there is no easy substitute.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    But Thomas Jefferson considered copyright a monopoly unlike other property rights, since he was concerned about allowing any monopoly, yet he obviously wasn't talking about abolishing private property.