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 454614
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I always wondered - depends
by jabbotts on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: I always wondered"
Member since:

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:

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

jabbotts Member since:

I had the impression that the original commenter was not a US citizen. Speaking from foreign perspective and potentially in a foreign first language; I think the sentence works fine to express the idea and provide relevant examples. Disney and Warner are both huge corporations legally obligated to manufacturer money for shareholders; content being the tools used in money manufacturing is incidental. They are both heavy handed corporations striving for a monopoly on content production and consumption. Even if not a monopoly, a duopoly is not much better nor is an oligarchy (can corporations be oligarchs?).

In general, the concern seems to be about mega-corporations exerting power over foreign governments and local foreign policy purely for the benefit of the corporation's bottom line regardless of how it affects consumers and/or foreign nations. I'd say that's a fair concern given US history of foreign policy and a government appearing to be bought and implemented to support businesses not citizens.

I'd sure like it if the US gov was less successful at pushing it's overbearing laws on us folk to the north.

Reply Parent Score: 4