In the Grip of the New Monopolists

[Ovi]

An article about the free market on the internet (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604993311538482.html).

The Internet has long been held up as a model for what the free market is supposed to look like—competition in its purest form. So why does it look increasingly like a Monopoly board? Most of the major sectors today are controlled by one dominant company or an oligopoly. Google "owns" search; Facebook, social networking; eBay rules auctions; Apple dominates online content delivery; Amazon, retail; and so on.
Today's Internet borders will probably change eventually, especially as new markets appear. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we are living in an age of large information monopolies. Could it be that the free market on the Internet actually tends toward monopolies?
We wouldn't fret over monopoly so much if it came with a term limit. If Facebook's rule over social networking were somehow restricted to, say, 10 years—or better, ended the moment the firm lost its technical superiority—the very idea of monopoly might seem almost wholesome. The problem is that dominant firms are like congressional incumbents and African dictators: They rarely give up even when they are clearly past their prime. Facing decline, they do everything possible to stay in power. And that's when the rest of us suffer.Found the link in a place where market fundamentalists preach their religion, also known as slashdot (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/13/1758242/The-Monopolies-That-Dominate-the-Internet). This time though, the preachers were silenced :D

[RGacky3]

The internet is'nt like a "free" market, its MUCH harder to enforce property laws online, property laws are the heart of the "free" market. However, in cases where property rights can be enforced, it'll act like a "free" market, i.e. an ologarchy.

[ComradeMan]

Exaggeration of what the internet is and isn't. The companies names are not virtual realities, they are real companies-with offices and people, warehouses, suppliers and so on and as such they behave the same way as they would have behaved in the 1970's and 80's before the dawn of internet as we know it today. The internet is just a giant interactive notice-board at the end of the day. Although internet has a lot of potential I get bored with these ideas of a "mystic" internet etc etc.

[Bud Struggle]

Those copmanies are huge on the Internet also because they deliver what people want not because they have some sort of stranglehold over anything. I remember when Altavista was THE search engine--but Google beat them out. Bing is looking to pass them out same with B&N pushing Amazon.

The companines out in front delivered the things people want--nothing wrong with that. Hell, that's why RevLeft is the king of the Radical Left. :)

[RGacky3]

The companines out in front delivered the things people want--nothing wrong with that.

Its a little more complicated then that. competition is part of it, but a lot of it is buying out, speculation, paying for advertisement, paying for your program to get used, theres a lot more to it than just "people like it."

You know what people like? The Pirate bay.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You know what people like? The Pirate bay.

Yeah they do. And Google is ever helpful towards people finding what they want on there, even if they are copyrighted works!

One of the things that got Google to the top spot was its relatively "hands-off" approach; if it decides to restrict searches in a major way or plaster their pages huge obnoxious adverts, people will either find someone else to do their searching with or they will download adblocking software.

Trying to censor information on the internet is an exercise in futility, so I'm not overly worried about giant like Google.

[ComradeMan]

I think the problem is with the original premise.

The Internet has long been held up as a model for what the free market is supposed to look like—competition in its purest form.

By whom? Someone with a two-dimensional analysis of geopolitical socio-economics?

The internet is not really a free market anyway- whereas I can go and sell my tomatoes on a stall "free" relatively, with internet I have costs, equipments, technology, web hosting and so on. These costs are additional to any production and delivery costs. I don't think it's a vey good model to be honest. I am sure someone with greater knowledge of economics would be able to give us a better analysis on this.

[Bud Struggle]

Trying to censor information on the internet is an exercise in futility, so I'm not overly worried about giant like Google.

FWIW: I have AOL and they censor Stormfront. It comes up File Not Found.

I have to use the IE when I want to get filled up on hate. :(

[Bud Struggle]

I think the problem is with the original premise.

The Internet has long been held up as a model for what the free market is supposed to look like—competition in its purest form.

By whom? Someone with a two-dimensional analysis of geopolitical socio-economics?

The internet is not really a free market anyway- whereas I can go and sell my tomatoes on a stall "free" relatively, with internet I have costs, equipments, technology, web hosting and so on. These costs are additional to any production and delivery costs. I don't think it's a vey good model to be honest. I am sure someone with greater knowledge of economics would be able to give us a better analysis on this.

In the US the government is looking to make universal boadband service available to everyone. I believe the government is eve financing it to remote locations.

[ComradeMan]

In the US the government is looking to make universal boadband service available to everyone. I believe the government is eve financing it to remote locations.

That's like making water and electricity available to everyone- but it isn't free. If you want to do something with what is available you have to pay.

The point is with this idea of a free market... I find it flawed.

The other point about the internet is that it is a capitalist advertiser's dream come true in a sense. Now I can buy and sell to a global market without having to open up shops everywhere and pay for all the staff and advertising etc. I broker between my supplier, warehouse or whatever and the customer. The internet thus heralds the end of shops and stores. That way we can all stay in our little boxes and be good and get what we want in order to improve our virtual little selves in our ever increasingly isolated reality. Great eh?

[Bud Struggle]

ThatThe other point about the internet is that it is a capitalist advertiser's dream come true in a sense. Now I can buy and sell to a global market without having to open up shops everywhere and pay for all the staff and advertising etc. I broker between my supplier, warehouse or whatever and the customer. The internet thus heralds the end of shops and stores. That way we can all stay in our little boxes and be good and get what we want in order to improve our virtual little selves in our ever increasingly isolated reality. Great eh?

Yea, but the Internet lets you set up your own shop. You can sell your old bicycle or make some big doe eyed kitten pictures or sell some home grown cure for bad breath. Craig's List and eBay make YOU the marketeer of the future. So there's that end of the Internet, too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

FWIW: I have AOL and they censor Stormfront. It comes up File Not Found.

I have to use the IE when I want to get filled up on hate. :(

That just proves my point; all you have to do to access Stormfront is change browsers. AOL's half-assed attempt might stump the complete and utter morons who think AOL is the internet, but it presents no challenge for anyone with the merest sliver of technical savvy.

[Havet]

This article is just ridiculous. Do you realize how much space does facebook occupy in regards to the overall internet? let me give you a clue:

http://xkcd.com/802_large/

(Map information compiled by webcomic enthusiast Randal Munroe)

The same people that say "now we can't picture our lives without facebook" are probably the same people who support hospitals to take care of facebook addicts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/croatian-hospital-treats-t131927/index.html?t=131927). Use your head for a second, ok?

The fact that there are services which are far more prefered by people only means that, as always, somethings go mainstream while others do not. HOWEVER, the beauty of the internet is that there is a lot more space for alternatives to emerge. here, 5 alternatives to google, just out of the top of my mind (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-google-search-alternatives-that-you-could-experiment-with/).

Here's 13 more alternatives to google (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/13-alternative-search-engines-that-find-what-google-cant/)

Hell, why not try one of these 100 alternatives to google (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php), while you're at it?

And let's not forget about Facebook. When I was young (like, 4 years ago), Facebook wasn't well known in my country. We had MySpace, we used Hi5. There are a lot more alternatives, but people just prefered to use facebook. Here's 6 more alternatives to FaceBook (http://www.socialmediatoday.com/SMC/199443)

Important conclusion: So long as none of these companies will try to use force (laws, lobbies, IP excuses, etc) to prevent competition, then we have absolutely nothing to worry about.

[ComradeMan]

Yea, but the Internet lets you set up your own shop. You can sell your old bicycle or make some big doe eyed kitten pictures or sell some home grown cure for bad breath. Craig's List and eBay make YOU the marketeer of the future. So there's that end of the Internet, too.

Exactly... you too can be a capitalist! ;)

[Bud Struggle]

AOL's half-assed attempt might stump the complete and utter morons....

But that's Stormfront's user base! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

(Sorry couldn't help it. ;) )

[ComradeMan]

But that's Stormfront's user base! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

(Sorry couldn't help it. ;) )

LOL!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Saw that one too.

[ComradeMan]

then we have absolutely nothing to worry about.

In my cynical experience it's when people say that we have nothing to worry about that we should already be worried! ;)

[Havet]

In my cynical experience it's when people say that we have nothing to worry about that we should already be worried! ;)

That's usually true when a government spokesperson or a corporate representative says so, but from a consumer standpoint, I think not!:cool:

[ComradeMan]

That's usually true when a government spokesperson or a corporate representative says so, but from a consumer standpoint, I think not!:cool:

...and internet is what at the end of the day? It's an information "business" mechanism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

13 Alternative Search Engines That Find What Google Can't? Bookmarked!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

...and internet is what at the end of the day? It's an information "business" mechanism.

I can't remember the last time I actually paid for anything I got over the internet.

[ComradeMan]

I can't remember the last time I actually paid for anything I got over the internet.

Even if you didn't pay for the product/item or whatever- you paid for the service provider and either you or someone else paid for the equipment to use internet. Nothing is free except fresh air.;)

[Revolutionair]

Sorry for going off-topic, but ComradeMan why are you restricted?

On topic:
The 'free-market' has always been a puzzle to me. It is supposed to combine a competitive market with an unregulated market.
I have some problems accepting that. One of the reasons is that without regulation, companies can just make price deals. In that way there is no competition.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even if you didn't pay for the product/item or whatever- you paid for the service provider and either you or someone else paid for the equipment to use internet. Nothing is free except fresh air.;)

It's as close to free as makes no difference. Computer equipment is an already sunk cost, and if you can't leech off someone else's Wi-Fi then you can get a mobile broadband dongle for less than £10 which gives you a month's internet access for £15.

During that month it is possible to download a hell of a lot, certainly more than the value of both the dongle and the connection fee, I reckon. You can certainly get a lot more out of it than you put in - shelling out for a computer is a one-time cost, and internet access is getting cheaper and faster and more convenient.

[ComradeMan]

It's as close to free as makes no difference. Computer equipment is an already sunk cost, and if you can't leech off someone else's Wi-Fi then you can get a mobile broadband dongle for less than £10 which gives you a month's internet access for £15.

During that month it is possible to download a hell of a lot, certainly more than the value of both the dongle and the connection fee, I reckon. You can certainly get a lot more out of it than you put in - shelling out for a computer is a one-time cost, and internet access is getting cheaper and faster and more convenient.


I see what you mean, but we weren't really talking about that so much- we were talking about the big names on the Internet.

However, if you spend £15 a month on internet, can you say that you get more back than you spend. Now if you multiply that by all the other £15 users a month, a year etc- let's say 1 million users- that £15 million a month, in year that £180 million- now are those million users getting equal to or more than £180 million back?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see what you mean, but we weren't really talking about that so much- we were talking about the big names on the Internet.

However, if you spend £15 a month on internet, can you say that you get more back than you spend. Now if you multiply that by all the other £15 users a month, a year etc- let's say 1 million users- that £15 million a month, in year that £180 million- now are those million users getting equal to or more than £180 million back?

Insufficient data for an answer.

[ComradeMan]

Insufficient data for an answer.

Yes Jim....! ;)

But do you see what happens when you take things up on a level too, at individual level there is one reality but at macro-level quite a different picture can emerge.

Hey, I'm not anti-internet, I'm just saying I don't think it's this wonderful mystic thing they always talk about- especially in relation to the OP.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes Jim....! ;)

But do you see what happens when you take things up on a level too, at individual level there is one reality but at macro-level quite a different picture can emerge.

Possibly in this case, but do you have any evidence? I'm thinking that the vast majority of people, whether they are pirating copyrighted works or not, feel they are getting "value for money" out of their internet access, otherwise they'd switch providers or stop completely.


Hey, I'm not anti-internet, I'm just saying I don't think it's this wonderful mystic thing they always talk about- especially in relation to the OP.

The thing is, backlash against internet hype can go too far, dimissing the importance of non-material goods and information, when in fact our civilisation increasingly relies on such things.

[ComradeMan]

Possibly in this case, but do you have any evidence? I'm thinking that the vast majority of people, whether they are pirating copyrighted works or not, feel they are getting "value for money" out of their internet access, otherwise they'd switch providers or stop completely.

The thing is, backlash against internet hype can go too far, dimissing the importance of non-material goods and information, when in fact our civilisation increasingly relies on such things.


Feeling your getting value for money cannot be brought down mathematically to an economic discussion.

The amount of filesharing and pirating etc that goes on- I can't give figures but I would think it is dwarved by the amount of "legitimate" business that goes on.

Our civilisation depends on sources of energy- for the most oil. ;) All the rest is luxury other than essential food.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Feeling your getting value for money cannot be brought down mathematically to an economic discussion.

The amount of filesharing and pirating etc that goes on- I can't give figures but I would think it is dwarved by the amount of "legitimate" business that goes on.

So people can get stuff for free, otherwise all the legitimate businesses on the internet would have gone bust - if your "somebody has to pay for it" hypothesis was true.


Our civilisation depends on sources of energy- for the most oil. ;) All the rest is luxury other than essential food.

Increasing numbers of people are no longer living a subsistence lifestyle. Our civilisation depends on energy, yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also depend on information.

[Budguy68]

I think the problem is with the original premise.

The Internet has long been held up as a model for what the free market is supposed to look like—competition in its purest form.

By whom? Someone with a two-dimensional analysis of geopolitical socio-economics?

The internet is not really a free market anyway- whereas I can go and sell my tomatoes on a stall "free" relatively, with internet I have costs, equipments, technology, web hosting and so on. These costs are additional to any production and delivery costs. I don't think it's a vey good model to be honest. I am sure someone with greater knowledge of economics would be able to give us a better analysis on this.

I disagree. it takes time, labor and money to start up a physical busniess (unless you are sellign tomates out of bags int he street corner). It takes time and money to build a stale and unless you already own property with a decent location then you're probably gonna have to rent.

With the Internet its Much cheaper to have an online store then to have a physical store. That is why these stores are so successful. Then again sellign tomates online wouldnt work because they would spoil by the time..

And What they mean by the internet beign closer to a free market they mean that you dont have that many regulations, permits, certification and buerocrates to deal with. You can sell things freely without some thugs telling what to sell, what price and how to sell.

Anyways You dotn think Internet Business to Customer commerence isn't a good model but can you should us a communist version model that beats it?

[Budguy68]

Sorry for going off-topic, but ComradeMan why are you restricted?

On topic:
The 'free-market' has always been a puzzle to me. It is supposed to combine a competitive market with an unregulated market.
I have some problems accepting that. One of the reasons is that without regulation, companies can just make price deals. In that way there is no competition.


Soo what exactly is wrong with 2 parties making a price deal they both mutually, voluntary, consenually agree on without the use of coercion or force?

[ComradeMan]

I disagree. it takes time, labor and money to start up a busniess. It takes time and money to build a stale and unless you already own property with a decent location then you're probably gonna have to rent.

Depends what you want to do, but you can start an offshore in some places in under less than 48 hours with relatively little expense.


With the Internet its Much cheaper to have an online store then to have a physical store. That is why these stores are so successful. Then again sellign tomates online wouldnt work because they would spoil by the time..

Not really- supermarkets already have online sales- it's just a step to the supermarket becoming a big refrigerated warehouse... People do sell food online anyway.

Imagine you want fresh fish- it is not unthinkable that the fisherman/boat receives an e-mail order in the future and when they return to port the boxes are ready and iced to be transported for delivery.


And What they mean by the internet beign closer to a free market they mean that you dont have that many regulations, permits, certification and buerocrates to deal with. You can sell things freely without some thugs telling what to sell, what price and how to sell.

Hmmm---- the sites are still restricted by the laws of the country in which they are registered- so no.


Anyways You dotn think Internet Business to Customer commerence isn't a good model but can you should us a communist version model that beats it?

I don't understand this last sentence. :confused:

[Budguy68]

Not really- supermarkets already have online sales- it's just a step to the supermarket becoming a big refrigerated warehouse... People do sell food online anyway.

My point here is that having an online store is cheaper then having a Physical store. If you have both thats probably better.


Imagine you want fresh fish- it is not unthinkable that the fisherman/boat receives an e-mail order in the future and when they return to port the boxes are ready and iced to be transported for delivery.

For large companies they receive all their orders and process everything electronically. This includes large fishing companies. Buesiness are becoming more and more online.




Hmmm---- the sites are still restricted by the laws of the country in which they are registered- so no.

Yep, In Cuba I heard you aren't even allowed to use comptuers not to long ago. Not sure how it is now. Not that peopel there could afford them if they could. My point is that this restrictions happen more in countries that have bigger more socialist governments.




I don't understand this last sentence. :confused:

You said you dont like this model. So I am askign you if you have a better model.

[ComradeMan]

You said you dont like this model. So I am askign you if you have a better model.

It's fundamentally geared towards capitalistic enterprise... so asking me whether I have a better model is a bit futile.:lol:

[Blackscare]

Those copmanies are huge on the Internet also because they deliver what people want not because they have some sort of stranglehold over anything.


Yes, for instance YouTube remains the top streaming video site precisely because it provides the best service, not at all because of inertia built up from it's former glory. :rolleyes:


I don't know about you, but I'm glad that they've added commercials and ratcheted up the censorship in recent years; it's whats kept me from taking my business elsewhere. Did they not constantly keep improving their myriad ways of intrusively and obnoxiously advertising and censoring (muted videos, copyright claims, anyone?), I'd go to a company that better understood how to properly piss me off.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, for instance YouTube remains the top streaming video site precisely because it provides the best service, not at all because of inertia built up from it's former glory. :rolleyes: If people want to use them--that is 100% the choice of the people. You can't get any more democratic than that.



I don't know about you, but I'm glad that they've added commercials and ratcheted up the censorship in recent years; it's whats kept me from taking my business elsewhere. Did they not constantly keep improving their myriad ways of intrusively and obnoxiously advertising and censoring (muted videos, copyright claims, anyone?), I'd go to a company that better understood how to properly piss me off. That's the beauty of the web--you can do anything you want. If youtube (or whomever) pisses off enough people then they are gone.

As far as copywrite claims--I'm pretty sure any video streaming site would do the same--or get sued.

[Havet]

Yes, for instance YouTube remains the top streaming video site precisely because it provides the best service, not at all because of inertia built up from it's former glory. :rolleyes:


I don't know about you, but I'm glad that they've added commercials and ratcheted up the censorship in recent years; it's whats kept me from taking my business elsewhere. Did they not constantly keep improving their myriad ways of intrusively and obnoxiously advertising and censoring (muted videos, copyright claims, anyone?), I'd go to a company that better understood how to properly piss me off.

Vimeo is less annoying in that regard, as it has more size capacity than youtube (longer time per video allowed, more video size)

Like I said before, there is pretty much always an alternative

And if there isn't one, YOU make one, or join with other people to make one collectively. Its far cheaper in the virtual world, not bound by traditional restraints, both from corporations as well as from the state, than in the real world.

[Revolutionair]

Soo what exactly is wrong with 2 parties making a price deal they both mutually, voluntary, consenually agree on without the use of coercion or force?

When did I use the words wrong or force? I just said that the free market is a puzzle to me, because without regulation you are not going to have competition because of price deals. And with regulation you are going to have state-created monopolies.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Soo what exactly is wrong with 2 parties making a price deal they both mutually, voluntary, consenually agree on without the use of coercion or force?

whoa its been a while since a libertarian turned up here yo :)

[RGacky3]

It would be interesting to hear what libertarians have to say about torrent sharing?

[Revolutionair]

You gotta police the Internet without regulations!

[Bud Struggle]

You gotta police the Internet without regulations! Easier said than done. :D

[Ele'ill]

I think the internet as it is now under current global socio-political conditions contributes to an unlevel playing field and further perpetuates poverty.

[Bud Struggle]

I think the internet as it is now under current global socio-political conditions contributes to an unlevel playing field and further perpetuates poverty.

How do you think it is doing that?

[Ele'ill]

How do you think it is doing that?


It's an extremely useful 'business' tool that happens to be limited to those that can afford it (the internet) as well as computers that can handle the increase in software technology. The skills needed to master both computers and the internet are limited as well and in the same manner.

[Havet]

It would be interesting to hear what libertarians have to say about torrent sharing?

Most libertarians are anti-IP. Only a small branch of right-libertarians are against torrent sharing.

[Bud Struggle]

It's an extremely useful 'business' tool that happens to be limited to those that can afford it (the internet) as well as computers that can handle the increase in software technology. The skills needed to master both computers and the internet are limited as well and in the same manner.

Not having it doesn't make you poor, it just limits your ability to get rich.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the internet as it is now under current global socio-political conditions contributes to an unlevel playing field and further perpetuates poverty.

I think you have it the wrong way round - not having internet access does those things.

[Ovi]

The internet is'nt like a "free" market, its MUCH harder to enforce property laws online, property laws are the heart of the "free" market. However, in cases where property rights can be enforced, it'll act like a "free" market, i.e. an ologarchy.
A domain name is private property and very well enforced.

Soo what exactly is wrong with 2 parties making a price deal they both mutually, voluntary, consenually agree on without the use of coercion or force?
It's known to the rest of the world as an anti-competitive practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices) . Or as a market failure
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure)
This article is just ridiculous. Do you realize how much space does facebook occupy in regards to the overall internet? let me give you a clue:

http://xkcd.com/802_large/



(Map information compiled by webcomic enthusiast Randal Munroe)

Straw man argument. Nobody said that Facebook has monopoly over the internet.


The same people that say "now we can't picture our lives without facebook" are probably the same people who support hospitals to take care of facebook addicts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/croatian-hospital-treats-t131927/index.html?t=131927). Use your head for a second, ok?

The fact that there are services which are far more prefered by people only means that, as always, somethings go mainstream while others do not. HOWEVER, the beauty of the internet is that there is a lot more space for alternatives to emerge. here, 5 alternatives to google, just out of the top of my mind (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-google-search-alternatives-that-you-could-experiment-with/).

Here's 13 more alternatives to google (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/13-alternative-search-engines-that-find-what-google-cant/)

Hell, why not try one of these 100 alternatives to google (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php), while you're at it?


As a market fundamentalist yourself, you don't understand the concept of monopoly and you confuse it with monopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony).


And let's not forget about Facebook. When I was young (like, 4 years ago), Facebook wasn't well known in my country. We had MySpace, we used Hi5. There are a lot more alternatives, but people just prefered to use facebook. Here's 6 more alternatives to FaceBook (http://www.socialmediatoday.com/SMC/199443)

Important conclusion: So long as none of these companies will try to use force (laws, lobbies, IP excuses, etc) to prevent competition, then we have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Because only the state can create monopolies. Yeah, I guess you missed the airlines price fixing (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/11/10/eu_fines_airlines_11b_in_price_fixing/) which lead the EU to fine 11 companies for 1.1 billion dollars a few days ago.


Those copmanies are huge on the Internet also because they deliver what people want not because they have some sort of stranglehold over anything. I remember when Altavista was THE search engine--but Google beat them out. Bing is looking to pass them out same with B&N pushing Amazon.

That's irrelevant. You should have read the article, or at least my first post. When people talk about a free market, they usually talk about a competitive unregulated market; is there such a thing?


The companines out in front delivered the things people want--nothing wrong with that. Hell, that's why RevLeft is the king of the Radical Left. :)
From the article:

We wouldn't fret over monopoly so much if it came with a term limit. If Facebook's rule over social networking were somehow restricted to, say, 10 years—or better, ended the moment the firm lost its technical superiority—the very idea of monopoly might seem almost wholesome. The problem is that dominant firms are like congressional incumbents and African dictators: They rarely give up even when they are clearly past their prime. Facing decline, they do everything possible to stay in power. And that's when the rest of us suffer. The thing is, once in a monopoly position, a company can use many techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive) to keep that position, by preventing competition from happening. Thus, no innovation or quality is necessary to maintain a state of monopoly. Just look at the anti-competitive practices made by Microsoft and the numerous actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case) taken by the European Commission to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's dominant position in the market. Then look at trusted computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing), whose main goal is to keep Microsoft from losing its market share, for instance, by making Microsoft Office files able to be opened only with Microsoft products. Of course there's also the issue of network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), where the value of a product increases with its number of users. For instance online videos. Why would content creators post their videos on websites where there are few users who would see it. On the other hand, if you want to see videos, you won't find much on a website that has few uploaders. This tends toward fewer providers and eventually towards a monopoly. The monopolist doesn't need to provide a better quality to keep its status, its position is enough in itself to insure a superior value, despite the real quality of the service.

[Ele'ill]

Not having it doesn't make you poor, it just limits your ability to get rich.


The existence of a mechanism that allows for wealth increase and a global system that is relying on this mechanism more and more can create an unlevel playing field. (because it and its peripherals are not available to large groups of people)

[Ele'ill]

I think you have it the wrong way round - not having internet access does those things.

We agree we're just looking at the situation differently.

[Bud Struggle]

The existence of a mechanism that allows for wealth increase and a global system that is relying on this mechanism more and more can create an unlevel playing field.

But that's how human history goes. The Iron Age surplanted the Bronze Age. It's perfectly natural and quite human.

[Ele'ill]

But that's how human history goes. The Iron Age surplanted the Bronze Age. It's perfectly natural and quite human.


Beneficial technology needs to be available in a practical manner to everyone.

[Robert]

sell some home grown cure for bad breath.

Where?

[Bud Struggle]

From the article:
The thing is, once in a monopoly position, a company can use many techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive) to keep that position, by preventing competition from happening. Thus, no innovation or quality is necessary to maintain a state of monopoly. Just look at the anti-competitive practices made by Microsoft and the numerous actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case) taken by the European Commission to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's dominant position in the market. Then look at trusted computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing), whose main goal is to keep Microsoft from losing its market share, for instance, by making Microsoft Office files able to be opened only with Microsoft products. Of course there's also the issue of network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), where the value of a product increases with its number of users. For instance online videos. Why would content creators post their videos on websites where there are few users who would see it. On the other hand, if you want to see videos, you won't find much on a website that has few uploaders. This tends toward fewer providers and eventually towards a monopoly. The monopolist doesn't need to provide a better quality to keep its status, its position is enough in itself to insure a superior value, despite the real quality of the service.

Good post. But Tosh.

But then maybe you are right in a way. Anyway I kind of compete in real life with a $30 billion dollar company and a $19 billion dollar company and a $7 billion dollar company. I'm am not close to any of that but I can tell you from personal experience you can compete with those guys and do quite well if you are good at what you do. You find a nitch and you own it and then expand--little by little. And then you eat their lunch. Anyway.

The big corporations don't own the market. But the little guys have to be smart and work hard and honestly I don't see much of that in America's market place. Entropreneaurs it seems to me give up to easily in a lot of cases.

As far as Microsoft goes--it is a thing of the past. It just needs to be toppled with something better and that hasn't happened yet. It's being gnawed away at the sides (Google, Apple)--but nothing revolutionary has replaced their operating systems.

Let that happen--and all hell will break loose. In the end it never is about BUSINESS--it's about IDEAS.

[Ele'ill]

Linux.


Great things sometimes have no desire to compete.

[RGacky3]

A domain name is private property and very well enforced.


Yeah, but thats just a small part of the internet, I think the internet is going to make a pretty good dent in intelectual property enforcement.


The big corporations don't own the market. But the little guys have to be smart and work hard and honestly I don't see much of that in America's market place. Entropreneaurs it seems to me give up to easily in a lot of cases.

As far as Microsoft goes--it is a thing of the past. It just needs to be toppled with something better and that hasn't happened yet. It's being gnawed away at the sides (Google, Apple)--but nothing revolutionary has replaced their operating systems.

Let that happen--and all hell will break loose. In the end it never is about BUSINESS--it's about IDEAS.

Big Corporations do own the market, the fact is sometimes letting the little guys have a piece is'nt such a bad thing for them, it would cost more to fight it than it would just to let them have a piece. Thats why Mcdonalds does'nt care about the corner burger shop

In the end its ALWAYS about Buisiness, ideas are only good if they benefit buisiness.

[Havet]

Straw man argument. Nobody said that Facebook has monopoly over the internet.

Wrong: it's right there in the article that you linked to (but apparently forgot to read):



...forgoing Facebook or Twitter means giving up whole categories of activity. For most of us, avoiding the Internet's dominant firms would be a lot harder than bypassing Starbucks...

... Google "owns" search; Facebook, social networking;...


As a market fundamentalist yourself, you don't understand the concept of monopoly and you confuse it with monopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony).

I know that those are two different things. In fact, I was the first person in OI that used those terms as separate to my knowledge. Your petty excuse of a rebuttal IS a strawman, as you pretend that I do not know differences between two different terms. You should read what you link to:


In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (monos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnia) "purchase") is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers.

But, wait a minute! There is not only one buyer! We are MILLIONS of buyers (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)! So we are not in a Monopsony position, as you claim that I had mistaken it, nor are we in a monopoly, as you believe from that article.


Because only the state can create monopolies. Yeah, I guess you missed the airlines price fixing (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/11/10/eu_fines_airlines_11b_in_price_fixing/) which lead the EU to fine 11 companies for 1.1 billion dollars a few days ago.

Of course not, but you are assuming that, just like in the internet, anyone can just round up the resources and make an airline, completely forgetting the amount of barrier-to-entry-regulation (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/) (necessary, of course, but not expendable when it suits your argument) and taxes (http://www.airlines.org/Economics/Taxes/Pages_Admin/Taxes.aspx) that it requires paying.

Once again the aggressive tone in which you started the discussion (just like an objectivist!) has done wonders to your credibility

[RGacky3]

Not having it doesn't make you poor, it just limits your ability to get rich.

Thats BEAUTIFUL word play.

[Bud Struggle]

Big Corporations do own the market, the fact is sometimes letting the little guys have a piece is'nt such a bad thing for them, it would cost more to fight it than it would just to let them have a piece. Thats why Mcdonalds does'nt care about the corner burger shop You don't know what you are talking about there. Big corporations fight for every inch of ground. (And what you are saying makes sense--why would they want to create a monopoly and get people looking at them?) But I can tell you--they fight for every inch of ground.


In the end its ALWAYS about Buisiness, ideas are only good if they benefit buisiness. Yea and that is ALWAYS what comsumers want. We've had an EXPLOSION of things over the last 10 years of consumer items. Give me you GPS--some freakin' satallite out in space will tell me where you are--for a few pennies. It's all good and it's all Capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

The internet is fast becoming if not already a tool of capitalist propaganda, lies and oppression. It is our revolutionary duty to keep the internet free by the people and for the people. If I had my way.... ooooh.... I'd stop commercial advertising on internet and allow no more than a yellow pages like entry and a simple catalogue... if I was in a good mood. That would just be a start.

[RGacky3]

Big corporations fight for every inch of ground. (And what you are saying makes sense--why would they want to creat a monopoly and get people looking at them?) But I can tell you--they fight for every inch of ground.


Well you have more experience I suppose in that area.


yea and they is ALWAYS what comsumers want. We've had an EXPLOSION of things over the last 10 years of consumer items. Give me you GPS--some freakin' satallite out in space will tell me where you are--for a few pennies. It's all good and it's all Capitalism.

just to be clear, Consumers are not an equal group, the consumers that matter, the ONLY ones that matter, are the ones with money, the ones that REALLY matter are the ones with a lot of money.

[Ovi]

Good post. But Tosh.

But then maybe you are right in a way. Anyway I kind of compete in real life with a $30 billion dollar company and a $19 billion dollar company and a $7 billion dollar company. I'm am not close to any of that but I can tell you from personal experience you can compete with those guys and do quite well if you are good at what you do. You find a nitch and you own it and then expand--little by little. And then you eat their lunch. Anyway.

The big corporations don't own the market. But the little guys have to be smart and work hard and honestly I don't see much of that in America's market place. Entropreneaurs it seems to me give up to easily in a lot of cases.

As far as Microsoft goes--it is a thing of the past. It just needs to be toppled with something better and that hasn't happened yet. It's being gnawed away at the sides (Google, Apple)--but nothing revolutionary has replaced their operating systems.

With more anti-trust laws put into practice by the governments to prevent Microsoft from further protecting its position, maybe it will one day be replaced by something better.

Linux.


Great things sometimes have no desire to compete.
And it will always stay at 1-2% of desktop market share in that case.

Wrong: it's right there in the article that you linked to (but apparently forgot to read):





I know that those are two different things. In fact, I was the first person in OI that used those terms as separate to my knowledge. Your petty excuse of a rebuttal IS a strawman, as you pretend that I do not know differences between two different terms. You should read what you link to:

Because only you could confuse online social networks with the internet:rolleyes:


But, wait a minute! There is not only one buyer! We are MILLIONS of buyers (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm)! So we are not in a Monopsony position, as you claim that I had mistaken it, nor are we in a monopoly, as you believe from that article.

Misread that, sorry. I was referring to perfect monopolies. You give 100 examples of irrelevant search engines to show that google doesn't have monopoly, even though it does (it's not a perfect monopoly, but still a monopoly.)


Of course not, but you are assuming that, just like in the internet, anyone can just round up the resources and make an airline, completely forgetting the amount of barrier-to-entry-regulation (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/) (necessary, of course, but not expendable when it suits your argument) and taxes (http://www.airlines.org/Economics/Taxes/Pages_Admin/Taxes.aspx) that it requires paying.

Unless you prove that state imposed regulation are bad for consumers and that they are a far higher barrier of entry than physical capital, this is yet another straw man argument.

[IcarusAngel]

Chomsky argues in Manufacturing Consent that far from providing a real alternative media, the internet often reinforces corporate dogma:

"Some argue that the Internet and the new communications technologies are breaking the corporate stranglehold on journalism and opening an unprecedented era of interactive democratic media. And it is true and important that the Internet has increased the efficiency and scope of individual and group networking. This has enabled people to escape the mainstream media's constraints in many and diverse cases. Japanese women have been able to tap newly created Web sites devoted to their problems, where they can talk and share experiences and information with their peers and obtain expert advice on business, financial, and personal matters. Chiapas resisters against abuse the bye Mexican army and government were able to mobilize an international support base in 1995 to help them publicize their grievances and put pressure on the Mexican government to change its policies in the region. The enlarged ability of Bolivian peasants protesting against World Bank privatization programs and user fees for water in 2000, and Indonesian students taking to the streets against the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia in 1998,m to communicate through the Internet produced a level of publicity and global attention that had important consequences: Bechtel Corporation, owner of the newly privatized water system in Bolivia that had quickly doubled water rates, backed off and the privatization sale was rescinded; the protests and associated publicity, along with the 1998 financial crisis, helped drive Suhato from office.

Broader protest movements have also benefited from Internet-based communication. When the leading members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) attempted in 1998 to push through in secret a Multilateral Agreement on Investment that would have protected further the rights of international investors as against the rights of democratic bodies within states, the Internet was extremely valuable in alerting opposition forces to the threat and helping mobilize an opposition that prevented acceptance of this agreement. Similarly, in the protest actions against the WTO meetings in Seattle in November 1999 and the IMF and World Bank annual gatherings in Washington, D.C., in April 2000, communication via the Internet played an important role in organizing the protests and in disseminating information on the events themselves that countered the mainstream media's hostile portrayal of these protests.

However, although the Internet has been a valuable addition to the communications arsenal of dissidents and protests, it has limitations as a critical tool. For one thing, those whose information needs are most acute are not well served by the Internet -- many lack access, its databases are not designed to meet their needs, and the use of databases (and effective use of the Internet in general) presupposes knowledge and organization. The Internet is not an instrument of mass communication for those lacking brand names, an already existing large audience, and/or large resources. Only sizable commercial organizations have been able to make large numbers aware of the existence of their Internet offerings. The privatization of the Internet's hardware, the rapid commercialization and concentraion of Internet portals and servers and their integration into non-Internet conglomerates -- the AOL-Time Warner merger was a giant step in that direction -- and the private and concentrated control of the new broadband technology, together threaten to limit any future prospects of the Internet as a democratic media vehicle.

The past few years have witnessed a rapid penetration of the Internet by the leading newspapers and media conglomerates, all fearful of being outflanked by small pioneer users of the new technology, and willing (and able) to accept losses for years while testing out these new waters. Anxious to reduce these losses, however, and with advertisers leery of the value of spending in a medium characterized by excessive audience control and rapid surfing, the large media entrants into the Internet have gravitated to making familiar compromises -- more attention to selling goods, cutting back on news, and providing features immediately attractive to audience and advertisers. The Boston Globe (a subsidiary of the New York Times) and the Washington post are offering e-commerce goods and services; and Ledbetter notes that "it's troubling that none of the newspaper portals feels that quality journalism is at the center of its strategy ... because journalism doesn't help you sell things." Former New york times editor Max Frankel says that the more newspapers pursue Internet audiences, "the more will sex, sports, violence, and comedy appear on their menus, slighting, if not altogether ignoring, the news of foreign wars or welfare reform."

New technologies are mainly intorduced to meet corporate needs, and those of recent years have permitted media firms to shrink staff even as they achieve greater outputs, and they have mad possible global distribution systems that reduce the number of media entities. The audience "interaction" facilitated by advancing interactive capabilities mainly help audience members to shop, but they also allow media firms to collect detailed information on their audiences, and thus to fine-tune program features and ads to individual characteristics as well as to sell by a click during programs. Along with reducing privacy, this should intensify commercialization.

In short, the changes in politics and communication over the past dozen years have tended on balance to enhance the applicability of the propaganda model. The increase in corporate power and global reach, the mergers and further centralization of the media, and the decline of public broadcasting, have made bottom-lien considerations more influential both in the Untied States and abroad. The comeption for advertising has become more intense and the boundaries between editorial and advertising departments have weakened further. Newsrooms have been more thoroughly incorporated into transnational corporate empires, with budget cuts and a further diminution of management enthusiasm for investigative journalism that would challenge the structures of power."

--Manufacturing Consent, Edward Hermann, Noam Chomsky, 2002 edition, pp. xv - xvii.

[ComradeMan]

Chomsky argues in Manufacturing Consent that far from providing a real alternative media, the internet often reinforces corporate dogma.

My thoughts too. Perhaps it's an age thing too, for those of us who remember life before fucking facebook!

[Blackscare]

Meriel is correct, Linux, as well as BSD, RISC OS, OSX, O/S 2, and many others have all taken "revolutionary" steps, and (arguably) outperform MS on all technical fronts.


So why does Microsoft continue on as it does? Inertia and licensing. Well, more specifically, DirectX. Because there are game dev companies that have been using the DX series for so long, it's easier to continue making games than to switch over to openGL. They also won't switch to Linux because they don't have nearly the same number of potential customers on Linux.

The problem there is that people are only going to Switch to Linux en masse if commercial games are made for it parallel to MS, which won't happen because MS would never allow DX to be used on an open platform. So you have a lock.


Very early on Gates realized that cornering the game market meant cornering most of the PC market, and so developed the directX library (which, by the way, has never been better than competetors generally), and then locked in as many developers to exclusivity contracts as possible. He knew that all it would take were a few crucial years and it would simply become too costly to switch over, regardless of how technically superior competition may be. Microsoft never rose through quality, they did it through diliberately stifling competition from the begining.


I mean, don't let actual knowledge of the industry or anything get in the way of your vague notions though, bud.


Anyway, MS is just an example. Proprietary software in general all tries to lock customers in through the same method, more or less. Proprietary file formats make it difficult to switch to competitors, because a potential buyer of a new product has to be able to use all the files he/she created with their former software with the new software, something that they probably won't be able to do because IP laws are used to prevent support across multiple programs.

See what I mean bud? Customers are intentionally prevented from having a choice. Even if there are competing companies, programs, etc, they can't switch.

Also, sites like youtube and facebook are useful in direct proportion to the number of other people using said site. So while it seems like an easy thing to switch to vimeo or *shudder* back to myspace should you be unhappy with service, you have to deal with vastly reduced content/smaller communities. This prevents migration on any meaningful scale from happening. Hell, facebook didn't even really get big taking myspace's customers, it cornered an older market than myspace targeted.

And of course, in the time since myspace and facebook have existed side by side, they started copying eachother and looking/acting/feeling very similar. So much for choice! You get two different domain names for facespace. Real nice.



But yea bud free markets and such HOO-RAH

[Havet]

Because only you could confuse online social networks with the internet:rolleyes:

Nobody is confusing those two things. There was a specific argument made at that article, where it is claimed that some corporations, dealing in search engines, trade and social networks, are starting to have too much power. And that article specifically said that, in their opinion, Facebook had the monopoly over the social network part of the internet. Either you agree with them or you don't. But don't pretend they didn't say it, because they did.


Misread that, sorry. I was referring to perfect monopolies. You give 100 examples of irrelevant search engines to show that google doesn't have monopoly, even though it does (it's not a perfect monopoly, but still a monopoly.)

Here we need to analyize the definition of Monopoly. If you don't mind, I will use Wikipedia for this, particularly because its a well referenced article.


In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Now, there seems to be several sources of monopoly power listed in wikipedia. Let's go through them:

Economic barriers: Economic barriers include economies of scale, capital requirements, cost advantages and technological superiority.


Economies of scale: Monopolies are characterised by declining costs over a relatively large range of production.[8] Declining costs coupled with large start up costs give monopolies an advantage over would be competitors. Monopolies are often in a position to cut prices below a new entrant's operating costs and drive them out of the industry.[8] Further the size of the industry relative to the minimum efficient scale may limit the number of firms that can effectively compete within the industry. If for example the industry is large enough to support one firm of minimum efficient scale then other firms entering the industry will operate at a size that is less than MES meaning that these firms cannot produce at an average cost that is competitive with the dominant firm. Finally, if long run average cost is constantly falling the least cost way to provide a good or service is through a single firm.[9]

Let's take google as an example (but this is equally valid for every other internet business). Google cannot "cut prices" and drive those 100 competitors out of the industry because google is not offering a product to consumers, it is offering a large audience for advertisement. Google could only, at least, steal away the advertising industry away from all the other alternatives, but many of those alternatives that I listed do not rely on advertising to survive.


Capital requirements: Production processes that require large investments of capital, or large research and development costs or substantial sunk costs limit the number of firms in an industry.[10] Large fixed costs also make it difficult for a small firm to enter an industry and expand

Just by the sheer amount of alternatives to google we can see that capital requirements are not as big as to significantly limit competition

Unless you prove that state imposed regulation are bad for consumers and that they are a far higher barrier of entry than physical capital, this is yet another straw man argument.[/QUOTE]


Technological superiority: A monopoly may be better able to acquire, integrate and use the best possible technology in producing its goods while entrants do not have the size or fiscal muscle to use the best available technology.[8] In plain English one large firm can sometimes produce goods cheaper than several small firms.

This may be one of the impediments, but once again, the sheer amount of alternatives that currently exist prove how they can get hold of similar technology to google even without google's size or fiscal muscle.


No substitute goods: A monopoly sells a good for which there is no close substitutes. The absence of substitutes makes the demand for the good relatively inelastic enabling monopolies to extract positive profits.

A lot of substitutes lying around. around 119 just from the ones I posted


Control of Natural Resources: A prime source of monopoly power is the control of resources that are critical to the production of a final good.

What are google's natural resources? Technology perhaps? But google does not have the monopoly over search-engine technology (it at least has monopoly over its particular branch of search engine, which they surely registered and patented).

We can also say that google produces audience for the advertising industry, and that NOBODY had a monopoly over.


Network Externalities: The use of a product by a person can affect the value of that product to other people. This is the network effect. There is a direct relationship between the proportion of people using a product and the demand for that product. In other words the more people who are using a product the higher the probability of any individual starting to use the product. This effect accounts for fads and fashion trends.[13] It also can play a crucial role in the development or acquisition of market power. The most famous current example is the market dominance of the Microsoft operating system in personal computers.

Now THIS is the reason why google has reached its size. But this is just one factor of all the other ones. And google hasnt exactly used this in any way that has prevented, or will be able to prevent alternatives to continue to be created and grow.


Legal barriers: Legal rights can provide opportunity to monopolise the market in a good. Intellectual property rights, including patents and copyrights, give a monopolist exclusive control over the production and selling of certain goods. Property rights may give a firm the exclusive control over the materials necessary to produce a good.

THIS is where google has a potential to achieve a de facto monopoly and to drive competition out, just like Microsoft has attempted. But, once again, google hasnt done it (there are still a lot of alternatives that exist), and there is no indication that it will. We can discuss possible reasons, but it will all be in the realm of speculation.


Deliberate Actions: A firm wanting to monopolise a market may engage in various types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force.

So far we have not seen any attempt of google to collude (maybe with Yahoo?) or lobbying governmental authorities, or imposing their service by force. But that is a potential danger zone.


Unless you prove that state imposed regulation are bad for consumers and that they are a far higher barrier of entry than physical capital, this is yet another straw man argument.

state-imposed regulation actively restricts competition, increases the prices of goods and increases the probability of monopoly domination by a firm (especially when the firm itself is state-owned).

[Ovi]

Meriel is correct, Linux, as well as BSD, RISC OS, OSX, O/S 2, and many others have all taken "revolutionary" steps, and (arguably) outperform MS on all technical fronts.


So why does Microsoft continue on as it does? Inertia and licensing. Well, more specifically, DirectX. Because there are game dev companies that have been using the DX series for so long, it's easier to continue making games than to switch over to openGL. They also won't switch to Linux because they don't have nearly the same number of potential customers on Linux.

Which is the same network effect that makes other services tend towards monopoly.


Anyway, MS is just an example. Proprietary software in general all tries to lock customers in through the same method, more or less. Proprietary file formats make it difficult to switch to competitors, because a potential buyer of a new product has to be able to use all the files he/she created with their former software with the new software, something that they probably won't be able to do because IP laws are used to prevent support across multiple programs.

The internet and software industry is much closer to what a free market is supposed to be than other economy sectors. The barriers of entry for your own shop are far lower on the internet than in real life, you can choose between hundreds of producers much faster without having to walk to each one etc. However, monopolies are just as easy to form and maintain, if not easier than in real life. Skype for instance is proprietary. The protocol is secret and it's not interoperable with other software, unless skype approves it. Thus it's nearly impossible to break a VOIP provider monopoly. Another example is the Adobe Flash Player. Because of its EULA, you are forbidden from ever installing it if you want to compete with them, though this one is partly based on IP laws.

[Havet]

Also, sites like youtube and facebook are useful in direct proportion to the number of other people using said site. So while it seems like an easy thing to switch to vimeo or *shudder* back to myspace should you be unhappy with service, you have to deal with vastly reduced content/smaller communities. This prevents migration on any meaningful scale from happening. Hell, facebook didn't even really get big taking myspace's customers, it cornered an older market than myspace targeted.

This is true, but where do you draw the line of how many users it takes for a certain website to become "a monopoly"?

Also, its not like youtube and facebook are "too big to fail" or essential in any way to the economy. They're only really important to the on-line advertising industry


And of course, in the time since myspace and facebook have existed side by side, they started copying eachother and looking/acting/feeling very similar. So much for choice! You get two different domain names for facespace. Real nice.

Well I have both and I don't see that much of a similarity, especially because MySpace is one of the most chosen websites when it comes to music/band/artist promotion, while Facebook is not (maybe in the future?)

[Bud Struggle]

So why does Microsoft continue on as it does? Inertia and licensing.RAH

Give it time. Don't be such a weenie that you think it all happens when you stamp your foot and pout.

[Ovi]

Nobody is confusing those two things. There was a specific argument made at that article, where it is claimed that some corporations, dealing in search engines, trade and social networks, are starting to have too much power. And that article specifically said that, in their opinion, Facebook had the monopoly over the social network part of the internet. Either you agree with them or you don't. But don't pretend they didn't say it, because they did.

Me:

Straw man argument. Nobody said that Facebook has monopoly over the internet. You:

Wrong: it's right there in the article that you linked to (but apparently forgot to read):You said the article claims that Facebook has monopoly over the internet. The only one who claims that is you.


state-imposed regulation actively restricts competition, increases the prices of goods and increases the probability of monopoly domination by a firm (especially when the firm itself is state-owned).
Good job ignoring my argument. Again, unless the state regulations are far more expensive than the physical capital, this is irrelevant. So without any regulations, those multi billion dollars airline company would not have engaged in price fixing? Plus, you didn't prove that those regulations are harmful. Maybe they're essential, thus any free market would have achieved the same, thus identical barriers of entry?
And of course you completely ignore every other example of monopoly on the internet, other than google, since your free market fundamentalism can't blame that on the state.

[Havet]

So without any regulations, those multi billion dollars airline company would not have engaged in price fixing?

They probably wouldn't even be multi-billion dollar companies to begin with. High competition restricts the size companies can grow to in proportion to their competitors


Plus, you didn't prove that those regulations are harmful. Maybe they're essential, thus any free market would have achieved the same, thus identical barriers of entry?

They are harmful because they increase the odds of the airlines fixing prices (by restricting competition, monopoly is achieved faster and collusion becomes more common) which I presume is something you don't want, as you just linked an article stating that, in your opinion, you found that harmful.


And of course you completely ignore every other example of monopoly on the internet, other than google, since your free market fundamentalism can't blame that on the state.

I'm open to discussing this in a case-to-case basis. Show me that example-i'm-apparently-ignoring.

[Blackscare]

Give it time. Don't be such a weenie that you think it all happens when you stamp your foot and pout.


Nice empty, "common sense", answer devoid of any analysis of the actual topic at hand. We just need some gumption and elbow grease I tells ya!


Clearly you miss the point. All of the examples I mentioned are simply to illustrate the same mechanism at work. It is the important mechanism that is key to understanding the digital medium, which is something I feel it safe to say I understand better than you (given that I initially came over to the Left because of my interest/involvement in the free software movement.) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fsf.org) What kind of businessman are you if you can't even recognize the most basic dynamic a particular market is based upon?

The digital world is completely fucked by IP laws at this juncture, there is literally no reason for the majority of programs to remain dominant without it's protection. You seriously don't understand something here. Clearly you don't understand the staggering implications of data monopoly or oligopoly in today and the future.

You shrug it off like you're talking about the relative merits of GM or Ford here, when they're totally different kinds of beasts. If you buy 5 Fords in a row, there is still nothing keeping you from buying a Dodge. The longer you use a certain proprietary OS/program/site, the less freedom of choice you have.

[Blackscare]

Also, its not like youtube and facebook are "too big to fail" or essential in any way to the economy. They're only really important to the on-line advertising industry

Well, to be fair, while I find stuff like that irritating, those types of websites are not my main concern. More danger to freedom comes from cloud-computing like google apps (which, ironically, I personally like more).



Well I have both and I don't see that much of a similarity, especially because MySpace is one of the most chosen websites when it comes to music/band/artist promotion, while Facebook is not (maybe in the future?)

Well, myspace is now relegated to music promotion but if you were a parallel user during the time of Myspace's slow fall from grace, you noticed that the two started adopting similar features. Facebook implimented groups like myspace, myspace started using facebook-style status updates, myspace changed it's layout to look more facebooky, etc etc etc.

Now the two are synced!

http://developer.myspace.com/Community/blogs/devteam/archive/2010/08/30/myspace-introduces-sync-with-facebook.aspx

[Bud Struggle]

Nice empty, "common sense", answer devoid of any analysis of the actual topic at hand. We just need some gumption and elbow grease I tells ya! OK!



Clearly you miss the point. All of the examples I mentioned are simply to illustrate the same mechanism at work. It is the important mechanism that is key to understanding the digital medium, which is something I feel it safe to say I understand better than you (given that I initially came over to the Left because of my interest/involvement in the free software movement.) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fsf.org) What kind of businessman are you if you can't even recognize the most basic dynamic a particular market is based upon? No clearly you are talking about yesterday's technology. As a businessman I can tell you Microsoft is nothing. Free software is nothing. You are talking about yesterday's technology. If you want major software writers to take the next step--fine. You want to add your part--fine. It's all out there. It's all cutting edge--if you so wish it. But don't expect Microsoft to give you their platform so you can dance on it!


The digital world is completely fucked by IP laws at this juncture, there is literally no reason for the majority of programs to remain dominant without it's protection. You seriously don't understand something here. Clearly you don't understand the staggering implications of data monopoly or oligopoly in today and the future. No that's just business. The Last set of innovators set up road blocks to their technology. SO YOU INVENT TECHNOLOGY OF YOUR OWN.That's how it works. You limit youself, Comrade.


You shrug it off like you're talking about the relative merits of GM or Ford here, when they're totally different kinds of beasts. If you buy 5 Fords in a row, there is still nothing keeping you from buying a Dodge. The longer you use a certain proprietary OS/program/site, the less freedom of choice you have. Exactly. Move on. Stop using your predecessor's business model--and you will be OK. :)

[Ovi]

They probably wouldn't even be multi-billion dollar companies to begin with. High competition restricts the size companies can grow to in proportion to their competitors

Advertising, economy of scale, all tend towards big companies.


They are harmful because they increase the odds of the airlines fixing prices (by restricting competition, monopoly is achieved faster and collusion becomes more common) which I presume is something you don't want, as you just linked an article stating that, in your opinion, you found that harmful.

Again, you are ignoring the reality. Your assumption is that without state regulation, there wouldn't be anti-competitive practices. You'll have to prove that state regulation represent the vast majority of the barriers of entry. Then you'll have to prove that we would be better off without regulations. If all they do is forbid airlines from over-working their employees till they crash the planes, I doubt anyone would want a free market where saving a few cents per passenger means increasing the risks of crashing.



I'm open to discussing this in a case-to-case basis. Show me that example-i'm-apparently-ignoring.
Facebook: any new company would have no chance to compete with them, even with superior quality. Nobody would join it if their friends haven't already
Ebay: nobody would post an auction on a website that has few buyers. Nobody would use a service that has few sellers
Trusted computing: Microsoft can lock Office files to their products. It's impossible to create a compatible alternative. Everyone uses Ms Office, there isn't any compatible software that works with the same files, thus you're forced to use the same.
Skype: if it acquires a monopoly on VOIP, it would be next to impossible to compete with that. You can't make a compatible client since the protocol is secret. You won't use another VOIP provider because none of your friends do, so your forced to use skype yourself.

[Havet]

Well, to be fair, while I find stuff like that irritating, those types of websites are not my main concern. More danger to freedom comes from cloud-computing like google apps (which, ironically, I personally like more).

I'm interested; how do you think cloud computing is more dangerous to freedom (and whose freedom are you talking about)?

[Blackscare]

I'm interested; how do you think cloud computing is more dangerous to freedom (and whose freedom are you talking about)?


Personal freedom of the end-user is what I'm talking about, and the reason why is that cloud-computing gives companies even more of a stranglehold on one's information than simple file format exclusivity because, in addition to said restrictions, companies like google actually take over the job of storage as well.

Stallman explains better than I.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

[Ovi]

Having your data accessible on any computer, instead of being tied to a single one is a great thing. However, it is when the profit motive kicks in, with all its goodies, that makes this a nightmare for freedom of speech, privacy and others. I for instance love Ubuntu One. It synchronizes your files on all your computer; if you phone would run it, you could just copy a file in the Ubuntu One directory on your PC and it would appear on your phone. You can also share files with friends. While the storage is on Amazon EC2 (if I'm not mistaken), the Ubuntu Foundation is non-profit, and Canonical, at least dedicated to free software. Thus, you don't have to worry about others collecting data about your files, your online habits and other things, like you would have to do with google.

[Havet]

Your assumption is that without state regulation, there wouldn't be anti-competitive practices.

That is not my assumption


Facebook: any new company would have no chance to compete with them, even with superior quality. Nobody would join it if their friends haven't already

Of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of established social network websites. Places such as Vkontakte, Hi5, Bebo, Friendster, Ozone, Linkedin, netlog, Windows Live Spaces, Orkut, Myspace, Badoo, so on so on


Ebay: nobody would post an auction on a website that has few buyers. Nobody would use a service that has few sellers

Sure, but there are other alternatives (http://www.wholesalematch.com/blog/ebay-is-not-the-only-option-alternative-places-to-sell-products-online/3443/)


Trusted computing: Microsoft can lock Office files to their products. It's impossible to create a compatible alternative. Everyone uses Ms Office, there isn't any compatible software that works with the same files, thus you're forced to use the same.

I don't know much about this, but many Linux format files are extremely successful (and compatible) with most pcs and OS, to the point where they are largely used


Skype: if it acquires a monopoly on VOIP, it would be next to impossible to compete with that. You can't make a compatible client since the protocol is secret. You won't use another VOIP provider because none of your friends do, so your forced to use skype yourself.

Once again, you completely ignore how there are already many alternatives to Skype, with a lot of people that use them (I personally use MSN Messenger, but here are others (http://www.voip-sol.com/10-skype-alternatives/))

[Ovi]

That is not my assumption

Then why no more regulations if it doesn't fix any problem?



Of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of established social network websites. Places such as Vkontakte, Hi5, Bebo, Friendster, Ozone, Linkedin, netlog, Windows Live Spaces, Orkut, Myspace, Badoo, so on so on

That's country dependent. Again, nobody said facebook is a pure monopoly, but just a simple one.


Sure, but there are other alternatives (http://www.wholesalematch.com/blog/ebay-is-not-the-only-option-alternative-places-to-sell-products-online/3443/)

Again, alternatives doesn't exclude monopolies.




I don't know much about this, but many Linux format files are extremely successful (and compatible) with most pcs and OS, to the point where they are largely used


It was a hypothetical scenario towards the upcoming Trusted Computing. It hasn't yet been fully put into practice, though most computers today support it, and Windows started using it since Vista.



Once again, you completely ignore how there are already many alternatives to Skype, with a lot of people that use them (I personally use MSN Messenger, but here are others (http://www.voip-sol.com/10-skype-alternatives/))
Again, I was asking you how could a VOIP monopoly could even be broken. From a comment to the article that explains it perfectly (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1847700&cid=34083272):

AND a contemporary example ; the internet, i.t., digitization of the society was another such land rush, a wild west. it was new, it wasnt even taken seriously at the start, noone knew what was it and what was going to happen. opportunist people with ideas and ambitions have entered this area. just like all these wild west situations, it was a phenomenally free environment in which there was great opportunities, great freedom. practical 'nobodies' (compared to established conglomerate owners) got rich over years' time, sometimes days. in a brave free world, the capitalist system seemed to fulfill its promise. after all, there was opportunity for the lower strata of society, who didnt have any capital and any place in pecking order - people were getting rich, right ?

right.

look how long did it take for it to end and an established order to come up. a decade ? a decade and a half ? AND, in the latter part of the period, bigger hierarchy have started to come into play, and attempt either buying out, absorbing, or subduing the newly established order. The whole idea of the article was that the initial competition between many companies decreases with time until you have a single player. Skype, as I stated, isn't there yet, but if it would get there, how would the market break that monopoly?

[Blackscare]

OK!

Well at least you're trying this time.



As a businessman I can tell you Microsoft is nothing. Free software is nothing. You are talking about yesterday's technology.
What?? Free software is not "old technology", it's an ethos! Are you kidding me? FS is typically some of the most cutting-edge shit you can get out there. Look at the major software companies, they mostly just rest on their lorals and release updates to their already dominant API/etc.

I really don't see what you're getting at here because honestly, the only thing that really has a chance to chip away at MS eventually is FS, rather than a competing individual company, precisely because it's much more difficult to treat a systemic threat (FS) than symptoms (google, apple, etc). Google and Apple need to work within a certain framework the FS circumvents, partially. At the end of the day the fact remains that the only thing that is propping up MS is it's inertia.

Maybe you're misunderstanding me? I'm not saying it's impossible to topple MS or facebook or anything, I'm just pointing out the staggering problems associated with such a task. Something you seem to want to ignore.


If you want major software writers to take the next step--fine. You want to add your part--fine. It's all out there. It's all cutting edge--if you so wish it. But don't expect Microsoft to give you their platform so you can dance on it!

What the fuck are you even getting at here? I already said that there's more cutting edge technology out there than MS, and explained the reason why it's not outcompeting it. I think perhaps you're a tad idealistic and mistaking a sober analysis of the dynamics of a market for whining.

[Havet]

Then why no more regulations if it doesn't fix any problem?

There is a difference between stating that "without state regulation, there wouldn't be anti-competitive practices" and stating that "regulations fix the problem of anti-competitive practices". There will always be anti-competitive practices (the state itself is an anti-competitive entity). Companies will always try to dominate the market. But regulations by themselves increase the barrier of entry, making it more costly for someone new to enter a market, and making it easier for the previous players to remain in the market and increase their dominance. The problem you are having, as I see it, is that you only see a dichotomy between using regulations (State regulations) or letting businesses do whatever they please in the current socio-economic context. But if you take time to consider an alternative context (one that can be achieved through revolution), one in which the dominant forms of enterprise, by the mere non-existance of barriers to entry, will approach cooperative and community models, you would see how lack of forceful regulation would be a good thing.

Contrary to what you may think (of me), I don't think that simply letting off anti-trust laws would automatically solve the problem of monopolies. Other factors must come into play as well, otherwise corporations will remain with their inflated & artificial power that they have collected, through force, all this time. Other factors include ending corporate personhood, ending corporate welfare, allow for collectivization of businesses, etc


That's country dependent. Again, nobody said facebook is a pure monopoly, but just a simple one.

There is no such thing as a "perfect monopoly". In that article I quoted, not once was "perfect monopoly" used, refered to or even cited. All those factors that I included in the previous response, that can lead to the formation of a monopoly, all those are not met by the current existing so-called "internet monopolies"

Badoo is not country dependent: "the site is most active in France, Spain and Italy, as well as Latin America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badoo)"

Neither is Windows Live Spaces, Vkontakte, Orkut, netlog, linkedin, frienster, in short, pretty much all the alternatives I posted. Please don't waste both our time anymore by actually finding out if what you claim is true or not before you post it.


Again, alternatives doesn't exclude monopolies.

Oh, yes it does.


It was a hypothetical scenario towards the upcoming Trusted Computing. It hasn't yet been fully put into practice, though most computers today support it, and Windows started using it since Vista.

Well that is certainly a realistic scenario. Usually, the only way that a company/business/corporation can maintain a monopoly in the internet is through the enforcement of intellectual property. But, if you look at most of the alternatives i've listed (generally the ones concerning open-source collaboration), you'll see that they don't enforce intellectual property. So I am left to conclude one thing: if we want to take away any possibility of a company ever achieving a virtual monopoly, we take away the ability of states to enforce intellectual property on the behalf of the corporations, leaving it to the users to decide which system to use.

If we extrapolate this to the real world, the conclusion I reach is that if we want to take away the possibility of a company achieving a monopoly, one of the things that we have to do is take away the ability of states to enforce private property on the behalf of the corporations, leaving it to customers to decide which product/service to get from those available, and making it easier for non-profitable alternatives to emerge.

This is why you should probably stop calling me a market fundamentalist


Again, I was asking you how could a VOIP monopoly could even be broken.

Well sorry for misunderstanding. But as I said above, I believe it could be broken by abolishing intellectual property


The whole idea of the article was that the initial competition between many companies decreases with time until you have a single player. Skype, as I stated, isn't there yet, but if it would get there, how would the market break that monopoly?

The market could only break that monopoly if non-IP alternatives still emerged. However, if the Skype corporation actively sought to enforce IP, or some other bullshit excuse to prevent competition, by using the aid of regulations, lobbies and laws within government, then yes, one could not break that monopoly within market means.

[Ovi]

There is a difference between stating that "without state regulation, there wouldn't be anti-competitive practices" and stating that "regulations fix the problem of anti-competitive practices". There will always be anti-competitive practices (the state itself is an anti-competitive entity). Companies will always try to dominate the market. But regulations by themselves increase the barrier of entry, making it more costly for someone new to enter a market, and making it easier for the previous players to remain in the market and increase their dominance. The problem you are having, as I see it, is that you only see a dichotomy between using regulations (State regulations) or letting businesses do whatever they please in the current socio-economic context. But if you take time to consider an alternative context (one that can be achieved through revolution), one in which the dominant forms of enterprise, by the mere non-existance of barriers to entry, will approach cooperative and community models, you would see how lack of forceful regulation would be a good thing.

Contrary to what you may think (of me), I don't think that simply letting off anti-trust laws would automatically solve the problem of monopolies. Other factors must come into play as well, otherwise corporations will remain with their inflated & artificial power that they have collected, through force, all this time. Other factors include ending corporate personhood, ending corporate welfare, allow for collectivization of businesses, etc

I guess it's not worth arguing anything. You still haven't proven how the regulations are harmful, thus a real market would not have done the same. And even though the market won't prevent monopolies itself, you're perfectly fine with that as long as there are no state regulations.


There is no such thing as a "perfect monopoly". In that article I quoted, not once was "perfect monopoly" used, refered to or even cited. All those factors that I included in the previous response, that can lead to the formation of a monopoly, all those are not met by the current existing so-called "internet monopolies"

Badoo is not country dependent: "the site is most active in France, Spain and Italy, as well as Latin America. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badoo)"

Neither is Windows Live Spaces, Vkontakte, Orkut, netlog, linkedin, frienster, in short, pretty much all the alternatives I posted. Please don't waste both our time anymore by actually finding out if what you claim is true or not before you post it.


In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to itA perfect monopoly, also known as a pure monopoly:

If there is a single seller in a certain industry and there are no close substitutes for the goods being produced, then the market structure is that of a "pure monopoly"




Well that is certainly a realistic scenario. Usually, the only way that a company/business/corporation can maintain a monopoly in the internet is through the enforcement of intellectual property. But, if you look at most of the alternatives i've listed (generally the ones concerning open-source collaboration), you'll see that they don't enforce intellectual property. So I am left to conclude one thing: if we want to take away any possibility of a company ever achieving a virtual monopoly, we take away the ability of states to enforce intellectual property on the behalf of the corporations, leaving it to the users to decide which system to use.

If we extrapolate this to the real world, the conclusion I reach is that if we want to take away the possibility of a company achieving a monopoly, one of the things that we have to do is take away the ability of states to enforce private property on the behalf of the corporations, leaving it to customers to decide which product/service to get from those available, and making it easier for non-profitable alternatives to emerge.

This is why you should probably stop calling me a market fundamentalist



Well sorry for misunderstanding. But as I said above, I believe it could be broken by abolishing intellectual property



The market could only break that monopoly if non-IP alternatives still emerged. However, if the Skype corporation actively sought to enforce IP, or some other bullshit excuse to prevent competition, by using the aid of regulations, lobbies and laws within government, then yes, one could not break that monopoly within market means.
Trusted Computing is not based on IP laws. Neither is DRM enforced through TC; neither trade secrets, such as the skype protocol. Do you actually have any real arguments, instead of blaming everything on the state?

[Havet]

You still haven't proven how the regulations are harmful, thus a real market would not have done the same.


Government regulations - It may make entry more difficult or impossible. In the extreme case, a government may make competition illegal and establish a statutory monopoly. Requirements for licenses and permits may raise the investment needed to enter a market, creating an effective barrier to entry.

Barriers to Entry play a role in competition (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/59/37921908.pdf)

Low competition (in which there is only one seller of a good = monopoly) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition)

Monopoly = higher artificial prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit)


And even though the market won't prevent monopolies itself, you're perfectly fine with that as long as there are no state regulations.

No, i am not perfectly fine with that. Monopolies should be abolished. The difference is that I think that under an environment with greater equality of opportunity for non-profitable ventures and with the abolition of special interest granted to capital, natural monopolies would be very rare, and if they did exist they would not pose the threat we are accustomed to expect.


A perfect monopoly, also known as a pure monopoly

Regardless, I always argued from a simple-monopoly standpoint, not a perfect one, as you accused me of, so take your strawman elsewhere.


Trusted Computing is not based on IP laws

Neither is DRM enforced through TC

Trusted Computing can and will most likely be used ito promote digital rights (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html) (which is pretty much the same as IP)


neither trade secrets, such as the skype protocol

It's one thing to have a trade secret; its another to prevent others from coming with similar protocols under the guise of intellectual property


Do you actually have any real arguments, instead of blaming everything on the state?

I have not blamed everything on the state. Do you have some sort of reading disorder?

[Bud Struggle]

I think perhaps you're a tad idealistic and mistaking a sober analysis of the dynamics of a market for whining.

Well that IS clearly what I did. My apologies.

[RGacky3]

Bud your answer was give it time, how did that work for TV, or any industry for that matter? Economic power always centralizes.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud your answer was give it time, how did that work for TV, or any industry for that matter? Economic power always centralizes.

And so (did and) will Communism. You are bucking the trend.

[RGacky3]

No it did'nt, just because your wrong does'nt make attacking the invisible Lenin an honest argument strategy, no one here is arguing for Lenin.

I'm gonna repeat Jazzrats post because its relevant,


The thing is that no on believes in the "communism" you're attacking. Not anarchists not trotskyites not even the fucking marxist-leninists. You are arguing against a phantasm that's entirely self created. It's why we may as well be saying anything in response to you and it wouldn't make one bloody iota of difference. Every time it looks like we're getting somewhere you always end up falling back on this tired bullshit. We may as well just reply to all your posts by typing "FISH CAKES" over and over again for the difference it makes.

Why don't you cut that shit out.

[Ovi]

Barriers to Entry play a role in competition (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/59/37921908.pdf)

Low competition (in which there is only one seller of a good = monopoly) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition)

Monopoly = higher artificial prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit)

No Havet. You criticized airlines regulations as the greatest obstacle to competition in the airline industry. You haven't proven that. And you haven't proven that safety regulations are actually harmful, that it would be better for all of us for more unsafe travel and that airlines would have chosen less safe methods instead of doing the same without regulations, for instance.


No, i am not perfectly fine with that. Monopolies should be abolished. The difference is that I think that under an environment with greater equality of opportunity for non-profitable ventures and with the abolition of special interest granted to capital, natural monopolies would be very rare, and if they did exist they would not pose the threat we are accustomed to expect.

Non-profitable ventures won't solve the problem of monopolies.


Regardless, I always argued from a simple-monopoly standpoint, not a perfect one, as you accused me of, so take your strawman elsewhere.



Trusted Computing can and will most likely be used ito promote digital rights (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html) (which is pretty much the same as IP)

Good job repeating whatever I'm saying. The difference you missed out is that TC doesn't need state laws to protect IP; it's done solely by private corporations.


It's one thing to have a trade secret; its another to prevent others from coming with similar protocols under the guise of intellectual property

Nobody prevents similar protocols with IP. If you don't know the protocol, since it's secret and it's not compatible with other protocols than if a company ever gets monopoly on that, it's impossible to break it. No IP needed. Again, no market mechanism can do anything about it.


I have not blamed everything on the state. Do you have some sort of reading disorder?
Sure you have. The sole problem with the airline price fixing is state regulations, even though you haven't proven how regulations are the largest obstacle to competition. You completely ignore TC, DRM and trade secrets as measures that protect monopolies and ramble about state granted IP laws, even though they have nothing to do with that.

[Havet]

No Havet. You criticized airlines regulations as the greatest obstacle to competition in the airline industry. You haven't proven that.

Of course I haven't proven that. I have never claimed they were the greatest obstacle to competition (i went to see some of my earlier posts and i dont say that, if i did say it i apologize and would like to tell you that i dont believe that anymore)


And you haven't proven that safety regulations are actually harmful, that it would be better for all of us for more unsafe travel and that airlines would have chosen less safe methods instead of doing the same without regulations, for instance.

You're commiting the same fallacious logic again. One thing does not imply the other. I have already explained this in the previous comments.


Non-profitable ventures won't solve the problem of monopolies.

Please re-read what I said carefully


Good job repeating whatever I'm saying.

I did not repeat anything. I only used the same link (which isn't repeating!) to prove a different point.


The difference you missed out is that TC doesn't need state laws to protect IP; it's done solely by private corporations.

Corporations which are treated as a human being by law, through the state. Corporations which have state-granted limited liability. The state is always there, backing them up.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATE IS THE SOLE CULPRIT OF THEIR BEHAVIOUR, FAR FROM IT. CORPORATIONS ARE THE FIRST TO BLAME, BUT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THEY ARE WORKING ON (SPECIAL CORPORATE STATUS AND PRIVILEGE) AND HOW IT CONDITIONS THEIR ACTIONS AND MIGHT INCENTIVE FOR DIFFERENT ACTIONS.

Do you understand now or do I need to make the font bigger?


Nobody prevents similar protocols with IP. If you don't know the protocol, since it's secret and it's not compatible with other protocols than if a company ever gets monopoly on that, it's impossible to break it. No IP needed. Again, no market mechanism can do anything about it.

How could a company EVER get a monopoly over those types of protocols? Protocols, which I should point out, are infinitely reproduceable in any computer. How can you have a monopoly (which implies scarcity) in a post-scarcity environment (the internet) without Forced Artificial Scarcity (IP laws) ???


Sure you have. The sole problem with the airline price fixing is state regulations

I have never said or implied that.


even though you haven't proven how regulations are the largest obstacle to competition.

Again, I will post this, in the hopes that your reading disorder won't get in the way this time:




Government regulations - It may make entry more difficult or impossible. In the extreme case, a government may make competition illegal and establish a statutory monopoly. Requirements for licenses and permits may raise the investment needed to enter a market, creating an effective barrier to entry.

Barriers to Entry play a role in competition (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/59/37921908.pdf)

Low competition (in which there is only one seller of a good = monopoly) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition)

Monopoly = higher artificial prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit)



You completely ignore TC, DRM and trade secrets as measures that protect monopolies

Apart from trade secrets in an internet environment, I have ALWAYS considered the others to be measures that PROTECT MONOPOLIES

STOP MISJUDGING MY POSITION JUST BECAUSE IT IS MORE EASY TO ARGUE WITH.


and ramble about state granted IP laws, even though they have nothing to do with that.

Oh right, because copyright infrigment (state granted IP law) has nothing to do with it...


DRM technologies have enabled publishers to enforce access policies that not only disallow copyright infringements, but also prevent lawful fair use of copyrighted works, or even implement use constraints on non-copyrighted works that they distribute; examples include the placement of DRM on certain public-domain or open-licensed e-books, or DRM included in consumer electronic devices that time-shift (and apply DRM to) both copyrighted and non-copyrighted works.

[RGacky3]

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATE IS THE SOLE CULPRIT OF THEIR BEHAVIOUR, FAR FROM IT. CORPORATIONS ARE THE FIRST TO BLAME, BUT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THEY ARE WORKING ON (SPECIAL CORPORATE STATUS AND PRIVILEGE) AND HOW IT CONDITIONS THEIR ACTIONS AND MIGHT INCENTIVE FOR DIFFERENT ACTIONS.


Of coarse you take that in mind, but you can't assume that taking it away will get rid of the situation, chacnes are the role that the state plays will just be replaced by private institutions.

Other than that I'm kind of leaning on Havets side here, the internet is a post-scarcity enviroment and monopolies cannot be enforced the traditional ways.

[Havet]

Of coarse you take that in mind, but you can't assume that taking it away will get rid of the situation, chacnes are the role that the state plays will just be replaced by private institutions.

Of course, that makes sense. Conditions must be kept that prevent private tyrannies from emerging. Removing regulations & corporate privilege is just a small segment of what a revolution would need to deal with.

The main issue is that democratic means should prevail over private tyrannies, whether those come from a government that doesn't directly represent its citizens or a corporation/business.

[Ovi]

Of course I haven't proven that. I have never claimed they were the greatest obstacle to competition (i went to see some of my earlier posts and i dont say that, if i did say it i apologize and would like to tell you that i dont believe that anymore)

And all you said is

Of course not, but you are assuming that, just like in the internet, anyone can just round up the resources and make an airline, completely forgetting the amount of barrier-to-entry-regulation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/) (necessary, of course, but not expendable when it suits your argument) and taxes (http://www.airlines.org/Economics/Taxes/Pages_Admin/Taxes.aspx) that it requires paying.I pointed out that a bunch of airlines companies engaged in price fixing and you're sole response was: it's the state's fault for increasing the barrier to entry. The whole idea of this thread is whether the market leads naturally to monopolies. This was one example, and your sole response was blaming the state.


Corporations which are treated as a human being by law, through the state. Corporations which have state-granted limited liability. The state is always there, backing them up.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATE IS THE SOLE CULPRIT OF THEIR BEHAVIOUR, FAR FROM IT. CORPORATIONS ARE THE FIRST TO BLAME, BUT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THEY ARE WORKING ON (SPECIAL CORPORATE STATUS AND PRIVILEGE) AND HOW IT CONDITIONS THEIR ACTIONS AND MIGHT INCENTIVE FOR DIFFERENT ACTIONS.

Do you understand now or do I need to make the font bigger?

Again, TCP, DRM and trade secrets have nothing to do with the state.


How could a company EVER get a monopoly over those types of protocols? Protocols, which I should point out, are infinitely reproduceable in any computer. How can you have a monopoly (which implies scarcity) in a post-scarcity environment (the internet) without Forced Artificial Scarcity (IP laws) ???

A misinformed opinion. Skype protocol is encrypted and nobody besides Skype developers knows how it works because of that. Just like all other trade secrets.




I have never said or implied that.

State regulations was your only response towards price fixing:

Of course not, but you are assuming that, just like in the internet, anyone can just round up the resources and make an airline, completely forgetting the amount of barrier-to-entry-regulation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/) (necessary, of course, but not expendable when it suits your argument) and taxes (http://www.airlines.org/Economics/Taxes/Pages_Admin/Taxes.aspx) that it requires paying.



Again, I will post this, in the hopes that your reading disorder won't get in the way this time:





Barriers to Entry play a role in competition (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/59/37921908.pdf)

Low competition (in which there is only one seller of a good = monopoly) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition)

Monopoly = higher artificial prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit)



So now you're claiming that state regulations are the largest obstacle to competition. A minute ago you claimed the opposite. And no, none of those articles proves either.






Oh right, because copyright infrigment (state granted IP law) has nothing to do with it...


You find a paragraph that contains DRM and copyright and you post it. Again, that's a straw man argument. Yes, DRM is used to protect copyrighted works. But DRM doesn't require state granted copyright laws to do that!

[Havet]

And all you said is
I pointed out that a bunch of airlines companies engaged in price fixing and you're sole response was: it's the state's fault for increasing the barrier to entry. The whole idea of this thread is whether the market leads naturally to monopolies. This was one example, and your sole response was blaming the state.

I simply said you were overlooking the state action behind it; nowhere did i "state" that the state was the biggest culprit. Again I have to ask you to stop oversimplifying my position just because it suits your argument.


Again, TCP, DRM and trade secrets have nothing to do with the state.

TCP and DRM are products of corporations. To some extent, they are also products of the state. If you just focus on tackling the corporations, the root of the problem will never go away, because businesses may still adopt that business practice (corporate personhood), they may still get limited liability for their actions, and they can still work within the system to lobby for regulations that are beneficial to them (IP being one of them in this case).

If you do not agknowledge that corporations benefit from the existence of the state, and use it for their own benefit, then you have no business calling yourself an anarchist or a communist.


A misinformed opinion. Skype protocol is encrypted and nobody besides Skype developers knows how it works because of that. Just like all other trade secrets.

The point is not if anyone besides Skype's developers know it. The point is if, HYPOTHETICALLY, SOMEONE ALSO FIGURED OUT THAT SAME PROTOCOL. And if there weren't any IP laws (which we have every reason to believe were passed because corporations lobbied heavily for them, and still do), then Skype couldn't do sh1t about it. But since IP IS real, Skype can claim that that hypothetical person is violating IP laws.


State regulations was your only response towards price fixing:

So now you're claiming that state regulations are the largest obstacle to competition. A minute ago you claimed the opposite. And no, none of those articles proves either.

Stop misinterpreting my position.

Let us make this simple. Do you not agree that regulation and taxes is one of the many barriers-to-entry possible in an industry?


Yes, DRM is used to protect copyrighted works. But DRM doesn't require state granted copyright laws to do that!

DRM is only enforced and accepted because corporations can get away with it. And they can get away with it, because there are laws that allow for that. Example:


Digital rights management systems have received some international legal backing by implementation of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). Article 11 of the Treaty requires nations party to the treaties to enact laws against DRM circumvention.
The WCT has been implemented in most member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization. The American implementation is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), while in Europe the treaty has been implemented by the 2001 European directive on copyright, which requires member states of the European Union to implement legal protections for technological prevention measures. In 2006, the lower house of the French parliament adopted such legislation as part of the controversial DADVSI law, but added that protected DRM techniques should be made interoperable, a move which caused widespread controversy in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Tre aties_Implementation_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bud your answer was give it time, how did that work for TV, or any industry for that matter? Economic power always centralizes.

In the case of TV at least, it requires far more resources to broadcast to a wide audience than it does to set up a website that can be visited by practically anyone with an internet connection. Also, the nature of TV broadcasting lends itself much more easily to centralisation - watching TV is a very passive activity, with little choice on the part of the viewer, with content being decided entirely by the broadcasters, versus computers and the internet which are fundamentally interactive, requiring a great deal of input from the user - you are the one who decides what to do on a computer and what websites to visit.

Also, it is ridiculously easy to circumvent things such as DRM with computers and the internet, whatever the law says.

[Ovi]

I should seriously let this thread die :lol:. It's too long

I simply said you were overlooking the state action behind it; nowhere did i "state" that the state was the biggest culprit. Again I have to ask you to stop oversimplifying my position just because it suits your argument.





TCP and DRM are products of corporations. To some extent, they are also products of the state. If you just focus on tackling the corporations, the root of the problem will never go away, because businesses may still adopt that business practice (corporate personhood), they may still get limited liability for their actions, and they can still work within the system to lobby for regulations that are beneficial to them (IP being one of them in this case).

If you do not agknowledge that corporations benefit from the existence of the state, and use it for their own benefit, then you have no business calling yourself an anarchist or a communist.

I never said that, even though anarchist critique of capitalism is a bit more than criticizing the state for benefiting corporations.


The point is not if anyone besides Skype's developers know it. The point is if, HYPOTHETICALLY, SOMEONE ALSO FIGURED OUT THAT SAME PROTOCOL. And if there weren't any IP laws (which we have every reason to believe were passed because corporations lobbied heavily for them, and still do), then Skype couldn't do sh1t about it. But since IP IS real, Skype can claim that that hypothetical person is violating IP laws.

Hypothetically, yes. But since there are no open source skype compatible clients, we can safely assume that's not the case.


Stop misinterpreting my position.

Let us make this simple. Do you not agree that regulation and taxes is one of the many barriers-to-entry possible in an industry?


Of course it is. That's not the point. The point is that your sole argument against a recent price fixing case was that is the government's fault for increasing the barriers of entry. That's not why the price fixing happened. It happened because the barriers of entry for an airline company are very high. It can happen because companies can engage in anti-competitive practices. Is the state partly to be blamed on this? Maybe it is; but I don't see the state as the main problem here. In fact, it's the state which dismantled the cartel. Without a state, I have a hard time imagining the market doing a better and faster job.



DRM is only enforced and accepted because corporations can get away with it. And they can get away with it, because there are laws that allow for that. Example:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_and_Performances_and_Phonograms_Tre aties_Implementation_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI
I was talking about DRM using TC. DRM today is a complete failure; mostly because it cannot be imposed that well. However, using the hardware to do that, instead of software means that it's no longer the case. There is no way to circumvent that through software and the so called fritz chip is already installed on most computers.

[RGacky3]

Of course, that makes sense. Conditions must be kept that prevent private tyrannies from emerging. Removing regulations & corporate privilege is just a small segment of what a revolution would need to deal with.

The main issue is that democratic means should prevail over private tyrannies, whether those come from a government that doesn't directly represent its citizens or a corporation/business.

the government representing not representing the citizens is entirely caused by corporate power. You take away that corporate power and it represents the citizens more, the government does'nt represent the corporations by choice, its their power that forces them.

Regulations are just a small tiny part of what gives corporations their power, most regulations THEY DON'T WANT, which is why they lobby to get rid of them.

pretty much whatever corporations lobby for, you want the opposite, so don't give them tax cuts, have tough regulations and so on.


In the case of TV at least, it requires far more resources to broadcast to a wide audience than it does to set up a website that can be visited by practically anyone with an internet connection. Also, the nature of TV broadcasting lends itself much more easily to centralisation - watching TV is a very passive activity, with little choice on the part of the viewer, with content being decided entirely by the broadcasters, versus computers and the internet which are fundamentally interactive, requiring a great deal of input from the user - you are the one who decides what to do on a computer and what websites to visit.

Also, it is ridiculously easy to circumvent things such as DRM with computers and the internet, whatever the law says.

Of coarse but I'm sure corporations can find away around it, look at the defeat net neautrality, when servers start choosing their content.