Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 00:10 UTC, submitted by SReilly
In the News "Spain last night killed a controversial anti-P2P bill that would have made it easier to shut down websites that link to infringing content. The move was a blow to the ruling Socialist government, but it may be of even bigger concern to the US, which pushed, threatened, and cajoled Spain to clamp down on downloading. And Wikileaks can take a share of the credit for the defeat."
Thread beginning with comment 454601
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I always wondered
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 15:56 UTC in reply to "I always wondered"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Uhm.... If there are many large alternative sources of media, then Disney and Warner are not Monopolistic.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: I always wondered - depends
by jabbotts on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:38 in reply to "RE: I always wondered"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If there are large alternative media outlets which reduce Disney's share of the market bellow 90% or so then Disney may not be a monopoly. They gotta be pretty close to legal monopoly status in kids entertainment at least. Outside of Diego/Dora.. it's pretty much all Disney.

Alternatively, if it can be shown that Disney is not capable of manipulating the market or leveraging success in one market segment to drive competition out of another then they may not be a Monopoly. Not saying they don't go out of there way to try and monopolize the market.

To complicate matters, it may very well be that Disney is in fact a Monopoly by legal definition. However, if they don't use that position as a competitive strategy, they compete through products rather than market maneuvering, they may be a natural Monopoly. The only real issue with being in monopoly position in any market is when you use that influence for anti-competitive advantage. My uneducated examples would be jacking the price of product because you are the only vendor, bundling a smaller product in with your main product so that competitors of that smaller product can't fairly compete ("fair" in legal not social sense) and similar.

Around these parts, we get a lot of US media and it really is staggering how much flows out of one or two parent companies. Companies like Disney and Viacom own absurd amounts of media production and display space.

Sadly, politics is like business.. it's not about a fair price for your product but about the maximum price you can convince people to pay. It's not about what legislation is fair for the citizens but what legislation can be snuck past to benefit the big businesses (ie. non-human legal entity campaign contributions).

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't know/care if they are or not. I just found the contradiction in the post funny.

You'll find that often in conspiracies: the same group that is omnipotent is also found to leave "obvious" clues to the conspiracy.

Reply Parent Score: 2