Comments on: Entertainment Cartels Rule. Everywhere.

By: The Great Deceiver

The Great Deceiver — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:17:30 +0000

So why does this website waste it’s time posting trivel like this ? first of all everybody knows that the US congress and the US goverment is corrupt to the bone and they take kickbacks and bribes from the entertainment cartels.

It is NEVER going to change.

.The US goverment supports all kinds of obsolete business models such as silly(civil sevice) tax supported military exchange retail outlets that are badly managed and don’t make a profit and private business contractors that generally rip of the federal goverment.

The US congress supports billions of dollars worth of useless pork barrel spending.

The federal goverment has always propped up failing businesses for bad business practices or other wise providing corporate welfare (PROTECTIONISM)for other failing american businesses other than the entertainment cartels.

If i think about the business practices of the movie and recording industry i think of ANTITRUST SUIT……………
GET OVER IT……………THINGS ARE NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

DON’T BUY THIER PRODUCTS AND WHY DON’T YOU QUIT YOUR CRYING ………………………

Competition law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Antitrust)
Jump to: navigation, search
“Antitrust” redirects here. For the 2001 film, see Antitrust (film). For laws specific to the U.S., see United States antitrust law.

Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
* banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to “remedies” such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

The substance and produce of competition Act vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Competition law is closely connected with law on deregulation of access to markets, state aids and subsidies, the privatisation of state owned assets and the establishment of independent sector regulators. In recent decades, competition law has been viewed as a way to provide better public services.[1] Robert Bork has found that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater then benefits for the consumers.[2] The history of competition law reaches back to the Roman Empire. The business practices of market traders, guilds and governments have always been subject to scrutiny, and sometimes severe sanctions. Since the twentieth century, competition law has become global. The two largest and most influential systems of competition regulation are United States antitrust law and European Community competition law. National and regional competition authorities across the world have formed international support and enforcement networks.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
o 1.1 Roman legislation
o 1.2 Middle ages
o 1.3 Renaissance developments
o 1.4 Restraint of trade
* 2 Today
o 2.1 United States antitrust
o 2.2 Development in other countries
o 2.3 European Union law
o 2.4 International enforcement
* 3 Theory
o 3.1 Classical perspective
o 3.2 Neo-classical synthesis
o 3.3 Chicago School
o 3.4 Policy developments
* 4 Practice
o 4.1 Collusion and cartels
o 4.2 Dominance and monopoly
o 4.3 Mergers and acquisitions
o 4.4 Public sector regulation
* 5 See also
* 6 Notes
* 7 References
* 8 Further reading
* 9 External links

[edit] History
Competition law
Basic concepts

* History of competition law
* Monopolization
o Coercive monopoly
o Natural monopoly
* Barriers to entry
* Market power
* SSNIP test
* Relevant market
* Merger control

Anti-competitive practices

* Collusion
o Formation of cartels
o Price fixing
o Bid rigging
* Product bundling and tying
* Refusal to deal
o Group boycott
* Exclusive dealing
* Dividing territories
* Conscious parallelism
* Predatory pricing
* Misuse of patents and copyrights

Laws and doctrines

United States

* Sherman Antitrust Act
* Clayton Antitrust Act
* Robinson-Patman Act
* FTC Act
* Hart-Scott-Rodino Act
* Merger guidelines
* Essential facilities doctrine
* Noerr-Pennington doctrine
* Rule of reason

Europe

* European Community
competition law
* Irish Competition Law
* Competition Act 1998 (UK)

Australia

* Trade Practices Act 1974

Enforcement authorities and organizations

* International Competition Network
* List of competition regulators

edit box

Main article: History of competition law

Laws governing competition law are found in over two millennia of history. Roman Emperors and Medieval monarchs alike used tariffs to stabilize prices or support local production. The formal study of “competition”, began in earnest during the 18th century with such works as Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including “restrictive practices”, “the law of monopolies”, “combination acts” and the “restraint of trade”.

[edit] Roman legislation

See also: Neoclassical synthesis

Paul Samuelson, author of the 20th century’s most successful economics text, combined mathematical models and Keynesian macroeconomic intervention. He advocated the general success of the market but backed the American government’s antitrust policies.
Paul Samuelson, author of the 20th century’s most successful economics text, combined mathematical models and Keynesian macroeconomic intervention. He advocated the general success of the market but backed the American government’s antitrust policies.

After Mill, there was a shift in economic theory, which emphasised a more precise and theoretical model of competition. A simple neo-classical model of free markets holds that production and distribution of goods and services in competitive free markets maximizes social welfare. This model assumes that new firms can freely enter markets and compete with existing firms, or to use legal language, there are no barriers to entry. By this term economists mean something very specific, that competitive free markets deliver allocative, productive and dynamic efficiency. Allocative efficiency is also known as Pareto efficiency after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto and means that resources in an economy over the long run will go precisely to those who are willing and able to pay for them. Because rational producers will keep producing and selling, and buyers will keep buying up to the last marginal unit of possible output – or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to the margin at which buyers will buy the same amount as produced – there is no waste, the greatest number wants of the greatest number of people become satisfied and utility is perfected because resources can no longer be reallocated to make anyone better off without making someone else worse off; society has achieved allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency simply means that society is making as much as it can. Free markets are meant to reward those who work hard, and therefore those who will put society’s resources towards the frontier of its possible production.[47] Dynamic efficiency refers to the idea that business which constantly competes must research, create and innovate to keep its share of consumers. This traces to Austrian-American political scientist Joseph Schumpeter’s notion that a “perennial gale of creative destruction” is ever sweeping through capitalist economies, driving enterprise at the market’s mercy.[48] This led Schumpeter to argue that monopolies did not need to be broken up (as with Standard Oil) because the next gale of economic innovation would do the same.

Contrasting with the allocatively, productively and dynamically efficient market model are monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels. When only one or a few firms exist in the market, and there is no credible threat of the entry of competing firms, prices raise above the competitive level, to either a monopolistic or oligopolistic equilibrium price. Production is also decreased, further decreasing social welfare by creating a deadweight loss. Sources of this market power are said to include the existence of externalities, barriers to entry of the market, and the free rider problem. Markets may fail to be efficient for a variety of reasons, so the exception of competition law’s intervention to the rule of laissez faire is justified if government failure can be avoided. Orthodox economists fully acknowledge that perfect competition is seldom observed in the real world, and so aim for what is called “workable competition”.[49][50] This follows the theory that if one cannot achieve the ideal, then go for the second best option[51] by using the law to tame market operation where it can.

[edit] Chicago School
Robert Bork argues that competition law is fundamentally flawed
Robert Bork argues that competition law is fundamentally flawed

See also: Chicago School (economics) and Neoclassical economics

A group of economists and lawyers, who are largely associated with the University of Chicago, advocate an approach to competition law guided by the proposition that some actions that were originally considered to be anticompetitive could actually promote competition.[52] The U.S. Supreme Court has used the Chicago School approach in several recent cases.[53] One view of the Chicago School approach to antitrust is found in United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner’s books’ Antitrust Law[54] and Economic Analysis of Law[55]

Robert Bork was highly critical of court decisions on United States antitrust law in a series of law review articles and his book The Antitrust Paradox.[56] Bork argued that both the original intention of antitrust laws and economic efficiency was the pursuit only of consumer welfare, the protection of competition rather than competitors.[57] Furthermore, only a few acts should be prohibited, namely cartels that fix prices and divide markets, mergers that create monopolies, and dominant firms pricing predatorily, while allowing such practices as vertical agreements and price discrimination on the grounds that it did not harm consumers.[58] Running through the different critiques of US antitrust policy is the common theme that government interference in the operation of free markets does more harm than good.[59] “The only cure for bad theory”, writes Bork, “is better theory”.[57] The late Harvard Law School Professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, in at least one Supreme Court case challenged Robert Bork’s preference for non-intervention.[60]

[edit] Policy developments

Anti-cartel enforcement is a key focus of competition law enforcement policy. In the US the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act 2004 raised the maximum imprisonment term for price fixing from three to ten years, and the maximum fine from $10 to $100 million.[61] In 2007 British Airways and Korean Air pleaded guilty to fixing cargo and passenger flight prices.[62]

These actions complement the private enforcement which has always been an important feature of United States antitrust law. The United States Supreme Court summarised why Congress allows punitive damages in Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.:[63]
“ Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation. ”

In the EU, the Modernisation Regulation 1/2003 means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Community competition law. This was done in order to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules,[64] which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.[65]

[edit] Practice
Globe icon
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

[edit] Collusion and cartels

Main articles: Collusion and Cartel

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith was an early enemy of cartels
Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Adam Smith was an early enemy of cartels

The core of competition policy has, since the 1980s, been the anti-price fixing cartel agenda, despite criticism by libertarians.[66] In The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith pointed out the cartel problem, but did not advocate legal measures to combat them.[67] Nowadays a far stricter approach is taken. Under EC law cartels are banned by Article 81 EC, whereas under US law the Sherman Act prohibitions of section 1. To compare, the target of competition law under the Sherman Act 1890 is every “contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy”, which essentially targets anybody who has some dealing or contact with someone else. In the mean time, Art. 81 EC makes clear who the targets of competition law are in two stages with the term agreement “undertaking”. This is used to describe almost anyone “engaged in an economic activity”,[68] but excludes both employees, who are by their “very nature the opposite of the independent exercise of an economic or commercial activity”,[69] and public services based on “solidarity” for a “social purpose”.[70] Undertakings must then have formed an agreement, developed a “concerted practice”, or, within an association, taken a decision. Like US antitrust, this just means all the same thing;[71] any kind of dealing or contact, or a “meeting of the minds” between parties. Covered therefore is a whole range from a strong handshaken written or verbal agreement to a supplier sending invoices with directions not to export to its retailer who gives “tacit acquiescence” to the conduct.[72]

Less of a consensus exists in the field of vertical agreements. These are agreements not between firms at the same level of production, but firms at different levels in the supply chain, for instance a supermarket and a bread producer. Recently, the United States Supreme Court has become more skeptical of antitrust cases predicated on agreements between companies that are not directly in competition with one another, such as a clothing manufacturer and a clothing retailer, while maintaining the strict prohibition against agreements that limit competition between companies at the same level of the supply chain, such as agreements between two retailers or between two distributors. Vertical agreements may still be illegal, but the burden of proving them illegal was raised by a number of recent cases from the per se illegal standard to a more demanding rule of reason standard.[73]

[edit] Dominance and monopoly

Main article: Monopoly law

The economist’s depiction of deadweight loss to efficiency that monopolies cause
The economist’s depiction of deadweight loss to efficiency that monopolies cause

When firms hold large market shares, consumers risk paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than compared to competitive markets. However, the existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm’s price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.

First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves “to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer.”[74] Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant,[75] which may be rebuttable.[76] If a firm has a dominant position, then there is “a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market”.[77] Similarly as with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold. Then although the lists are seldom closed,[78] certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country’s legislation. For instance, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to raise expenditure and update technology could be abusive.[79] Tying one product into the sale of another can be considered abuse too, being restrictive of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[80] leading to an eventual fine of €497 million for including its Windows Media Player with the Microsoft Windows platform. A refusal to supply a facility which is essential for all businesses attempting to compete to use can constitute an abuse. One example was in a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[81] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated.

Forms of abuse relating directly to pricing include price exploitation. It is difficult to prove at what point a dominant firm’s prices become “exploitative” and this category of abuse is rarely found. In one case however, a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices, and this was justified on the basis that prices of funeral services outside the region could be compared.[82] A more tricky issue is predatory pricing. This is the practice of dropping prices of a product so much that in order one’s smaller competitors cannot cover their costs and fall out of business. The Chicago School (economics) considers predatory pricing to be unlikely.[83] However in France Telecom SA v. Commission[84] a broadband internet company was forced to pay €10.35 million for dropping its prices below its own production costs. It had “no interest in applying such prices except that of eliminating competitors”[85] and was being crossed subsidised to capture the lion’s share of a booming market. One last category of pricing abuse is price discrimination.[86] An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export your company’s sugar, but not to Irish customers who are selling their goods in the same market as you are in.[87]

See also: Dominance (economics) and Monopoly

[edit] Mergers and acquisitions

Main article: Mergers and acquisitions

A merger or acquisition involves, from a competition law perspective, the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer than before.[88] This usually means that one firm buys out the shares of another. The reasons for oversight of economic concentrations by the state are the same as the reasons to restrict firms who abuse a position of dominance, only that regulation of mergers and acquisitions attempts to deal with the problem before it arises, ex ante prevention of creating dominant firms.[89] In the United States merger regulation began under the Clayton Act, and in the European Union, under the Merger Regulation 139/2004 (known as the “ECMR”[90]). Competition law requires that firms proposing to merge gain authorisation from the relevant government authority, or simply go ahead but face the prospect of demerger should the concentration later be found to lessen competition. The theory behind mergers is that transaction costs can be reduced compared to operating on an open market through bilateral contracts.[91] Concentrations can increase economies of scale and scope. However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can have a knock on effect on the deal that consumers get. Merger control is about predicting what the market might be like, not knowing and making a judgment. Hence the central provision under EU law asks whether a concentration would if it went ahead “significantly impede effective competition… in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening off a dominant position…”[92] and the corresponding provision under US antitrust states similarly,

“No person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital… of the assets of one or more persons engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where… the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.[93]

What amounts to a substantial lessening of, or significant impediment to competition is usually answered through empirical study. The market shares of the merging companies can be assessed and added, although this kind of analysis only gives rise to presumptions, not conclusions.[94] Something called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is used to calculate the “density” of the market, or what concentration exists. Aside from the maths, it is important to consider the product in question and the rate of technical innovation in the market.[95] A further problem of collective dominance, or oligopoly through “economic links”[96] can arise, whereby the new market becomes more conducive to collusion. It is relevant how transparent a market is, because a more concentrated structure could mean firms can coordinate their behaviour more easily, whether firms can deploy deterrants and whether firms are safe from a reaction by their competitors and consumers.[97] The entry of new firms to the market, and any barriers that they might encounter should be considered.[98] If firms are shown to be creating an uncompetitive concentration, in the US they can still argue that they create efficiencies enough to outweigh any detriment, and similar reference to “technical and economic progress” is mentioned in Art. 2 of the ECMR.[99] Another defence might be that a firm which is being taken over is about to fail or go insolvent, and taking it over leaves a no less competitive state than what would happen anyway.[100] Mergers vertically in the market are rarely of concern, although in AOL/Time Warner[101] the European Commission required that a joint venture with a competitor Bertelsmann be ceased beforehand. The EU authorities have also focussed lately on the effect of conglomerate mergers, where companies acquire a large portfolio of related products, though without necessarily dominant shares in any individual market.[102]

[edit] Public sector regulation

Main articles: Public services, Regulated market, and EC regulation
See also: American Telephone & Telegraph, Kingsbury Commitment, Hush-a-Phone v. FCC, and Bell System divestiture

Public sector industries, or industries which are by their nature providing a public service, are involved in competition law in many ways similar to private companies. Under EC law, Articles 86 and 87 create exceptions for the assured achievement of public sector service provision. Many industries, such as railways, telecommunications, electricity, gas, water and media have their own independent sector regulators. These government agencies are charged with ensuring that private providers carry out certain public service duties in line of social welfare goals. For instance, an electricity company may not be allowed to disconnect someone’s supply merely because they have not paid their bills up to date, because that could leave a person in the dark and cold just because they are poor. Instead the electricity company would have to give the person a number of warnings and offer assistance until government welfare support kicks in.[103]

By: The Great Deceiver

The Great Deceiver — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:15:16 +0000

It is NEVER going to change.

The US congress supports billions of dollars worth of useless pork barrel spending.

If i think about the business practices of the movie and recording industry i think of ANTITRUST SUIT……………
GET OVER IT……………THINGS ARE NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

DON’T BUYT THIER PRODUCTS AND WHY DON’T YOU QUIT YOUR CRYING ………………………

Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

[edit] History
Competition law
Basic concepts

* History of competition law
* Monopolization
o Coercive monopoly
o Natural monopoly
* Barriers to entry
* Market power
* SSNIP test
* Relevant market
* Merger control

Anti-competitive practices

Laws and doctrines

United States

Europe

* European Community
competition law
* Irish Competition Law
* Competition Act 1998 (UK)

Australia

* Trade Practices Act 1974

Enforcement authorities and organizations

* International Competition Network
* List of competition regulators

edit box

Main article: History of competition law

[edit] Roman legislation

By: Rekrul

Rekrul — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:53:46 +0000

” Thanks. I was getting tired of reiterating the same points over and over in the vain hope that it would achieve something.
You very eloquently put the final “nail” into that particular “coffin” in a manner that, frankly, I couldn’t manage to do.”

My pleasure.

By: cyberscan

cyberscan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:12:41 +0000

Who says that file sharers are not creating? I have released software into the public domain several times. I like to make a living programming, and I do, but I don’t like the B.S.A., M.P.A.A., R.I.A.A., or any of the other bully organizations which seek to protect the greedy and hold back society’s advancement. These bully organization seem to only protect the large “creators” and not the small. Anyway, I don’t think there would be so much sharing if there wasn’t so much copyright abuse and overpricing. As far as the net coming under control of the copyright monopolies and governments, alternative are already are being set up, so the cat and mouse games will continue.

By: Henry Ermich

Henry Ermich — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:26:37 +0000

Rekrul:
Thanks. I was getting tired of reiterating the same points over and over in the vain hope that it would achieve something.
You very eloquently put the final “nail” into that particular “coffin” in a manner that, frankly, I couldn’t manage to do.

Now, we’re hopefully done with that particular horror-show.

By: Rekrul

Rekrul — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:11:53 +0000

Sam,

“Stay in the reality of the present, Henry. You are referring to things as they “should have been” missing the slightly larger, inconvenient fact that the rules are not as you would write them.”

The correct statement would be that the rules are not as they should be.

“Your cheap little remark “No research, no thinking” on this subject made me laugh. My lawyer and I have been deep in copyright legislation since about the time you were born.”

You may have been involved in copyright legislation for decades, but it’s the twisted, corrupted copyright legislation bought by the media corporations, not the copyright legislation that was originally intended.

“My IP will not be orphaned, Henry, it’s set up for re-register and eventually becomes an ongoing trust to be leveraged as my daughter sees fit until expiration takes it away from her.”

You and all the other content producers have been brainwashed by the media propaganda into believing that copyrights were created for exactly the opposite purpose as they were originally intended for. The original creators of copyright law saw copyrights as a necessary evil to prvide encouragement to authors before their work *INEVITABLY* passed into the public domain for the good of all. You and all the other content producers seem to view things like the public domain and fair use as being vile, evil things that seek to take away your “right” to perpetual ownership of everything you’ve ever created.

Read up on the origins of copyright law sometime. The creators of it saw the danger in copyrights, which is why they put limits on them. Every single un-biased study done on the issue has found that society would be better off if copyrights and the length of IP protection were REDUCED, not extended. Copyrights were never intended to provide welfare for your grandchildren.

“I’ve been registering copyright for decades and it’s increasingly clear you have a big mouth and not the first clue.”

And you remind me of kids today who think that video games started with the original Playstation.

By: Henry Ermich

Henry Ermich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:28:45 +0000

Sam,
Seriously now — your complete (willful?) inability to actually formulate a coherent or meaningful response to any of the points I’ve raised? I find it encouraging, myself. I mean, here you are, big-time IP mogul or whatever it is that you do – skilled, college-educated, supposedly clawed your way up from the same basic lower-middle-class backwater as I’m in now, and yet you can’t even be bothered to actually answer any of the points I raised. Oh wait — that’s right, you DID actually answer them all, by conceding that my basic claim in regard to the extention of copyright terms was “quite true”.

Rifle, “Sam?”
Nah. To be honest, you’re probably “just some guy”, same as me — a little more “investment” in the status quo, a little more “advantage” in supporting the RIAA (and, not coincidentally, the complete destruction of any form of “public domain” whatsoever), but — ultimately, just like me — you’re small-time.
Willfully ignorant on this issue, obviously very convinced of your own self-importance simply because you know the intricacies of the Red-tape swamps better than some of us, but ultimately just another really small fish in a rapidly-draining creek.

Do I “condone” civil disobedience/”illegal” downloading?
It’s not my business to condone OR condemn. I mentioned “the statute of anne” because it’s true. I mentioned the “limited” scope of IP “protection” because THAT’S true, too. I mentioed the RIAA’s egregious expansion of copyright terms because THAT’S true, too.

Whether you, me, or ANYBODY thinks it’s “right” or “wrong”, the fact remains that a steadily-increasing number of folks are starting to question how IP law is being used (and, sometimes, even if it SHOULD be used, at all). A large number of them are beginning to flout such “laws” at every available opportunity. Quite simply, it’s a matter of principle.
You understand “principles”, don’t you “Sam?”
No rifle and clocktower for YOU, Ole buddy, sorry to dissapoint you. First, like I said, you’re essentially nobody, and secondly, that’s not my deal. I’m not a street-fighter. Despite whatever idiocy you try to throw at me, I’m not just some yahoo with “zero understanding” of these issues — in fact, as I’ve pretty conclusively demonstrated over the last what, 20 messages, now, I evidently know a HELL of a lot more about the history, justification, and (more importantly) LIMITS of IP “protection.”

So Sam? Do us all a favor here: just take a big ol’ deep breath, swallow hard, and repeat this phrase:

“Quite right, Henry.”

‘Nuff said.

By: Henry Ermich

Henry Ermich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:16:43 +0000

Sam:
“Naive, unknowing things possible?”
Now, that’s fascinating, “Sam”:
A vulture like yourself — completely unconcerned about what things like copyright/patents were originally supposed to do, and you accuse me of being”unknowing” and “naive”.
But see, that’s where what you deride as “useless history” comes in: the more people learn, the less they’re apt to allow themselves to be continue to allow themselves to be screwed over. Glad to hear about Bryant park, “Sam” (although I fail to see how that’s actually relevant to anything we’ve discussed here.)

Now, be a good little RIAA shill and answer the question:
1. what was the original intent of IP law?
2. What is “civil disobedience”?
3. What is your stance on the “public domain?”
4. Is Privacy a “privilege” to be revoked if it conflicts with the whims of corporate lobbyists?

The “waters” in which you swim are — to you — completely beyond any question (or possible reproach). We undestand that, “sam”.
We also understand that you’re reluctant to actually answer any questions, which is fine.

So go right ahead, li’l buddy — try to “discredit” me (as if that’ll actually do one single bit of good).
Of course it’s “locked up”, “Sam” — you and your buddies at the RIAA have made amply sure of that.

And as per your request to “suck on that”? If I may be so bold (try and stop me you mindless corporate shill), we’ve been “sucking on it” in regard to IP monopolies for DECADES, and a growing number of us are good and sick of it.

“Sam”, as per usual you’ve raised no actual points and answered none of the questions which were put to you.
Of course, you CAN’T actually answer any of the points raised because to your line of ‘thinking’ none of it makes any sense: You’ve been so thoroughly propagandized into believing in this mythical “fundamental human right” to perpetual monopoly power enforced by the State that even QUESTIONING such an axiomatic idea is impossible for you.

We all understand that, “Sam”. It’s also not surprising that — when confronted with the evidence which contradicts your deeply cherished assumptions, that your first instinct would be to completely ignore such evidence and/or attempt to discredit the messenger(s).

Thus we get your snippy little asides about the fact that I’m just a regular person — as opposed to, let’s say, an RIAA lobbyist or an apologist for such.) Go for it — ignore the warning signs. Feel free to completely disregard the fact that — whatever you may think about it — there IS a growing movement on many different fronts which has begun to call your type out in regard to the colossal “screwjob” your buddies in “Big Media” and “big pharma” have been able to give us.

“Massive outdoor installations” won’t disguise that fact, “sam”.
Kathy Lee Gifford feigned surprise when confronted with irrefutable evidence that her clothing-line used third-world child labor.
So it’s certainly no shock that a “person” such as yourself would react this way.

Enjoy the popcorn, “Sam” — it’s shaping up to be something of a “slasher” flick

By: Sam I Am

Sam I Am — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:41:37 +0000

“Grabs the popcorn and waits for samiam to spout more crap.
Man this is better than anything hollywood could come up with”

LOL.

Climb the clocktower with a rifle, Henry. You know you want to. LOL

And you misunderstood. In no way did I compare online piracy to rape. You stated that if the legislature had not extended copyright, then the downloading wouldn’t be illegal and I didn’t disagree with you. All I said was….. had (even) sexual assault (or any other crime) not been rendered illegal by legislation, then that too would be legally permissible. Your logic is empty. That’s all. Like your career. What do you do for a living, Henry?

We just finished staging Fashion Week here in Bryant Park. Huge tents, hundreds of fashion designers from all over the world, thousands of participants, a massive temporary infrastructure we help to design and they set up and take down twice a year. Every dress design, every set and lighting design, every photo taken by every press photographer, every video, every TV interview, every webcast…..100% locked up intellectual property. 100%. Suck on that for awhile.

Anyone reading Jon’s page understands that you genuinely believe you know something/anything about all this from your computer in Pennsylvania, like a man who’s never actually been in the water but once read a book on swimming.

Believe/download/carp/civil disobey as you wish, my friend. We are all in this together and it’s all fair, right? I support your ability to do whatever you’ll do, just as I support an organized society’s right to lock your dumbass up when that time comes. It’s pretty ironic that you find me ungenerous for not wanting to release our creations to public domain when you are not making any in the first place. LOL.

And just when I think you’ve said the most naive, unknowing things possible, you keep talking.

Keep talking, Henry.
But put the rifle down. LOL

By: Henry Emrich

Henry Emrich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:11:35 +0000

What’s really interesting to me here is, I’m at least vaguely sympathetic to “Sam”’s position:

See, knowing WHY a particular law exists simply “never comes up” for most people.
Most folks just blithely assume that how things ARE is how they “always were”. That’s why history strikes so many people — such as Sam — to be “useless”: who needs to understand the original INTENT of a given class of “law”: it’s enough that one be able to use the law to attain maximum social and economic leverage over others.

“Sam” puts on a big show about how “industry is people”, and tries — unsuccessfully, of course — to put a “human face” on the Corporate Megaliths which are rapdily ushering in what amounts to “digital feudalism”. It won’t work.
IP “law” was essentially a type of “bribe” — a “perk” extended to the “content industry” for a LIMITED TIME, as an added incentive to produce. It’s wasn’t — and ISN’T — a “fundamental right”, and — despite most of us never having slogged through the endless blizzard of bureaucratic nonsense your pals at the RIAA/MPAA have managed to create, we’re still smart enough to know when we’re being screwed.

Corporations ARE “people” — or at least, governments grant them the status of “legal personhood” that is from a legal standpoint seperate from the “personhood” of their employees or even their Executive board. So yeah, we understand the “industry is people” — in the case of the RIAA/MPAA, a few vastly wealthy, politically-savvy, morally bankrupt “people” who have lobbied for decades to successfully retain posession of what — by the ORIGINAL INTENT of IP legislation itself — SHOULD have been opened to us all, long ago.

But, “Sam” — and the suit-and-tie vermin he applauds — figure that all-but-perpetual monopoly backed up by threats and harrassment is their “fundamental human right” — whereas privacy, for instance, is merely the “privilege of a well-ordered society”, to be sacrificed at legislative whim should such action become neccesary for the preservation of “Order and Commerce”.

Oh, but wait — this isn’t merely a greasy, grasping, willfully-ignorant RIAA shill we’re talking about — he’s REALLY continuing to support current IP laws for his DAUGHTER — lobbying the State to preserve that monopoly for as long as possible.
For you see, from “Sam’s” point of view, the mere existence of the “Public Domain” is the vilest sort of atrocity, and the threat of the coercive monopoly’s expiration “taking away” from his daughter simply cannot be tolerated.

Historical roots of IP law? Who needs history? What’s important, according to “Sam”, is that we “Stay in the reality of the present” — and presumably, continue to sit idly by while the “Cartels” lobby the public domain which is “robbing” them — and the privacy rights behind whch we supposedly “hide” in order to commit the greivous sin of failing to “rent” the broken, DRM-laden wreckage of our cultural heritage from them until the end of time.

See, we’re all stupid. Anyone who can’t — for whatever reason — manage to successfully wrangle the rats-nest of Red tape Sam’s pals over at “Big Media” and “big pharma” and those other wondeful multinational “persons” have created, should just swallow it. They’ve been able to get the State to agree that ten thousand years would still constitute a “limited time?” Well, too goddamn bad. That’s just the “cold, hard realities of business” and we should all “grow a pair and learn to compete.”

Libraries? Fuck ‘em.
Documentary film-making? Artsy crap that nobody really watches.
“Unauthorized public performances” of a copyrighted song at a child’s birthday party? “Think of the chiiildren.”

But hey, we have “zero understanding”, so the sheer weight of history itself can safely be ignored, right???

I’m not going to play anymore, folks: “Sam’s” inane, spittle-spraying, hamfisted attempts to defend Digital feudalism, and his truly sad and desperate need to take “pot shots” at me/my wife/our pets/anyone and anything which he cannot manage to intimidate or BUY OFF — nah. I’ll just keep posting my “useless history lessons” and “Sam” will continue ignoring them, secure in the knowledge that Corporate feudalism is inevitable.

Ain’t life grand?

By: justme

justme — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:43:22 +0000

Grabs the popcorn and waits for samiam to spout more crap.
Man this is better than anything hollywood could come up with.

By: educ8

educ8 — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:46:27 +0000

And I will add: you must also repair what you have caused to my satisfaction!

By: educ8

educ8 — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:42:35 +0000

As a free person I have the rights to do as I please without anyone’s permission as long as I don’t hurt anyone. Filthy rich persons and companies are definitely not hurting.
If someone tells secret to another it’s not a secret any more. If one of these people tell someone else it’s public domain.

How much is your freedom and privacy worth? Here is mine take on it.

Notice to anyone trying to restrict my fundamental rights:
My prices;
If you breach my privacy and or freedoms you and your associates will pay $1 billion dollars in gold and or 90% of your total worth payable in gold.
If you come and hassle me against my constitutional rights it’s $1 million in gold.
If you arrest me it’s $5 million in gold.
For every day spent in anyone’s jail $10 million in gold.
If you bring me to court unlawfully [I recognize common law only] it’s $50 million in gold.
For whatever price you put on your wrongful losses my price is to add a zero to your price, payable in gold.
Prices are subject to change as I see fit.

You have just been served Notice of Understanding and Intent, plus Remedy.

Hint: this is the only way to fight the greedy and control freaks. Anything else is just lip service.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:56:21 +0000

@ Ryan Scott Scheel:

“Where do you get the page visits number?”

At the bottom of every page, immmediately under HOME (861 as a I write this).

Cheers!

By: Henry Ermich

Henry Ermich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:25:18 +0000

Oh, and as for your accusation of me being a “shop-lifting potty mouth”:
“People do shitty things all the time” — or dare I not quote back your own words to you (yet again!)

Y’know, this really interested me at first.
“Debating” with a pseudo-intellectual who claims I have “zero understanding” of the issue, (despite my having provided copious links to supporting documentation), who completely refuses to actually answer any of the points raised, and whose best “responses” consist of nothing more than petty personalistic gibes is, to put it bluntly, boring as hell.

No, I’ve never wrangled the bureaucratic beast in the ways you describe, “Sam”.
I’ve never bribed lawmakers, either.
Nor have I ever owned slaves.
Nor have I ever traveled to Bangkok to engage in sex tourism.

Nonetheless, lacking intimate knowledge of the minutae related to every aspect of the above activities in no way means that I have “zero understanding” of them. As I said — you feel it is in your vested interest to support a legal climate which aims to freeze the “public domain” at 1923. We all understand that.
But at least have the common courtesy to actually post meaningful responses.

If this is the best you can do, then — as I said originally — why am I even bothering?

By: Henry Emrich

Henry Emrich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:11:53 +0000

Truth be told, I almost respect “Sam”.
After all, he doesn’t even begin to make a pretense of actually understanding the roots of IP law — characterizes such an inquiry as a “useless history lesson”.

First he claims that the copyright monopoly is a “fundamental human right”. Then when confronted with the irrefutable fact that copyright is a relatively recent invention, all he can come up with is bombastic gibberish about how he believes owners should have “exclusive control” of their content “for a significant time”.

It’s obvious that he believes the original 11-year term isn’t “significant”, given the fact that he sees the expiration of copyright as “taking away” from his daughter. It’s obvious he doesn’t give two liquidy shits about the “public domain”, either.

When confronted with the numerous exceptions and caveats which ALREADY riddle copyright law — such as “fair use” and the “first sale doctrine”, “Sam”’s approach is to either ignore the issues raised entirely or engage in some kind of half-witted attempt at character assasination and personal insults.

THEN when finally cornered into admitting that lobbyists have basically hijacked copyright and turned it into what amounts to a perpetual monopoly, the best he can come up with is “Quite True, Henry”, and more pissy little jibes at me/my competence/my commie-anarchist leanings/etc.

Oh, and let’s not forget the claim that I have “zero understanding” of the issues at hand. Despite having provided copious links to other sources — STARTING with the statute which is at the root of virtually EVERY copyright law now extant in the English-speaking world.

To be quite honest, I’m not that suprised.
“Sam” is merely a symptom of just how successful a job the RIAA has been able to do, and how far there is left to go.

By: Togenshi

Togenshi — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:56:40 +0000

*sigh* on how we could let this happen. Im just wondering if there were any links between 9/11 and this chain of events. We already know the government is corrupted so its quite plausible. This is very effective on tagging everyones movements and all.

Anyhow, back to issue on hand. IP should be open till it is used for profit. Of course this is not a “one size fits all” issue.

Musicians should release their music for free and perform at concerts for income. They still can grab sponsors and investors and still make a pretty penny. Plus the audience is now greater. Consumer has free music and musicians have good income, win win.

Movies on the other hand should focus on quality where the consumer would feel obliged to purchase a ticket or buy the dvd. Quality of movies improves. Consumer wins.

Games are flexible in having in-game advertising and should be offered on a content provider like steam where it also acts as a service. I actually dont mind paying stuff on steam cause i had to reinstall xp numerous times and downloading steam makes it that much easier. Consumer and Developer win win.

Software – Companies that use the software are obliged to pay the license fees. For the individual, it opens the market for users that will have a ripple-effect where one person will tell another about the software. Developers have bigger base, more profit, win win.

Books – Publishers can offer users who bought the book additional online content for free as an incentive to purchase the copy. Well, as a student of Uni myself, i prefer books > digital books and i dont think im the only one in this category. It will survive.

What else is there?

Its just a matter of adapting. Seriously its not hard to change the system to your benefit. All that the “Entertainment Cartels” are doing is denying the inevitable by holding on like dinosaurs.

If i get caught, i’ll just do a case of “civil disobedience” and hopefully people will follow. Im still going to download no matter what. The **AA can shove its laws up its ass for all i care. I’ll just cause such a fuss that i hopefully can get the local current affairs tv show in. They will bite at anything to get ratings.

The one thing that i am royally pissed off about is that fileshares are charged worse than if you actually stole the physical content in the first place. Its like wtf. Besides, police should worried more about drugs, alcohol abuse, vandalism and ACTUAL theft over file-sharing.

Now, we talked so much about the **AA, but who on earth knows the identity of the CEO? We need to give that bastard hell.

By: chronoss

chronoss — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:33:04 +0000

fuck copyright
look at all the BIG winded BS above.

WHOLLY CRAP BATMAN
its a right we give
and its one we should now take away and then have them cry a little, all they are doing now is shoving up all YOUR ASSHOLES.
YOU want change
Leave mixed cds everywhere you can
put a movie on , two tv eps
leave a dvdr
leave tons a music

Start taking it to the streets
put your money where your mouths are and share properly.

Next phase is to also start picking movie theatres (

By: Henry Ermich

Henry Ermich — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:43:25 +0000

“Zero understanding” of the law?
Heh.
Let’s take a different approach, here:
How about laws relating to “miscegenation”, “Sam”.
How about “separate but equal”, “Sam?”
How about women’s suffrage, or voting rights for 18 year olds, “Sam?”
How about “Prohibition”, ‘Sam’?

Laws can be (and very often ARE) changed, but all such changes in the law are preceded by corresponding changes in people’s opinions and views on a given issue. The fact is, “Sam”, that IP in all forms is a State-granted monopoly power (regardless of whatever fill-in-the-blamks bureaucratic nonsense you want to blather in this regard, THAT much is clear even to someone like myself who has “zero” understanding — as opposed to a pseudo-intellectual mastermind such as yourself.)

You haven’t once even attempted to challenge that (other than your idiotic claim that IP represents a “fundamental human right”, which I demonstrated to be patently false via my “Statute of Anne” link.) No, all you’ve done is repreated bleating of some variation of “it’s the laaaaw! It’s the Laaaaw!” in order to — you hope — sidestep having to actually ADDRESS any of the points we raise.

You flatly discount even the IDEA of civil disobedience, regard privacy as a “privilege”, and — despite your spittle-dripping whingings to the contrary — have absolutely NO interest in “the wonderful free network we all share”.

Now actually answer the points raised, or go back to masturbating over printouts of the DMCA.

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:43:15 +0000

Freethinker: Me and Sam I am, the same person?
Nah — I can actually manage to read, and think coherently.

Ok, sorry. No offense meant.