Thread: A Serious Discussion on Current Copyright Law.

Originally Posted by Arakasi

Price fixing is illegal in most countries, including the US, and Europe, so regulators can do something about it. Generally they will only step in if there is either a whistle blower, or they will independently investigate if there is profiteering going on, that is cartels forming to fix prices artificially high in order to reap huge profits.

I don't know what the margins are in the entertainment industry of TV, Games, and Films, so have no idea if that is what is happening here.

Yes, that's true. Except (in the US at least) regulators are set by Congress and Congress is effectively controlled by lobbyists from those companies. Capitalism at its finest. I don't know if the same happens in Europe. I certainly hope not.

As for whether the prices actually are set or not, I can't give evidence for tv/films. But prices for video games are for the most part set. Almost always 360 and PS3 games are $59.99 when they just come out, whether the game is expected to suck or be one of the best games ever. PC and Wii are $49.99. Sure the price drops over time, but the competing systems almost always keep the same price for the same game. There are rare cases due to a game just being better on one system over another. But that to me seems like they're talking to each other. This is also regardless of the publisher, although I know Microsoft publishes most of the 360's games. Don't know about the others.
Similar thing goes for music. Just jumping on amazon and looking up the newest releases, the prices range from $9 - $15, and that range seems to be set more by the popularity of the artist and the amount on the cd. And once again that is regardless of the music company.



Sure you can say that these prices have been set by consumers deciding whether or not to buy at a certain price. But then again isn't the enormous torrenting community consumers saying that they don't like the prices? And I wouldn't be surprised if the torrenting community is the excuse these companies are using to keep prices high if someone complains, be it government or civilian. That's just my take on it, but I'm extremely biased against the capitalism that exists in the world today. Would love to hear someone else's opinion on this.

Originally Posted by DaegonPhyn

Yes, that's true. Except (in the US at least) regulators are set by Congress and Congress is effectively controlled by lobbyists from those companies. Capitalism at its finest. I don't know if the same happens in Europe. I certainly hope not.

Regulators are government appointed. They are independent but it would be naive to think they are completely free from political pressure.

The kind of lobbying that goes on in the US, does not happen in Europe, in fact it is illegal, and there is a great deal of scrutiny, on where political party funding is coming from.

Having said that all politicians have a healthy fear of the media, and film and TV production companies are generally part of, or affiliated to a wider media organisation. So politicians would be wary of going after them, unless they had strong popular support.

Pricing is pretty standardised for games and dvd's in Europe as well, though that is not in itself evidence of collusion, it may just be that none of the companies, (as was mentioned there are not many of them), has any desire to start a price war.

However collusion may well exist and it would not surprise me if it did.

The original intent of Copyright and Patent was to benefit the PEOPLE (NOT the rights holder!) by granting a period of limited -- LIMITED -- exclusivity to the original creator of the work. Why was this of benefit to the people? Because it ENCOURAGED new works to be created, thus enriching our lives. If noone every paid for a movie ticket or a DVD, studios would not make new movies because there would be no financial incentive in it. That's the goal of copyright.

This original intent has been twisted by rights holders in cooperation with congress into a form of personal property.

Copyright was never intended to recognize a WORK as personal property exclusively owned by the author or buyer. The COPYRIGHT was supposed to be the personal property, and the COPYRIGHT was supposed to expire in a reasonable period of time, originally 14 years.

Of course now rights holders want to convince you that the work itself should be recognized as personal property, and that is why copyright has been extended over and over, with the goal of eventually making it permanent. Once it is permanent, then there is no difference between saying that the work is personal property and the copyright is personal property.

This is not good for society. Instead of encouraging creativity, it actually squashes it. Why should you bother creating new works if you can instead rest on your laurels and collect copyright dues on works created hundreds of years ago? Why make new good movies when you can sell Star Wars for the rest of eternity?

Copyright needs to be reigned in, and then ENFORCED. A good copyright would combine heavy punishment and strong enforcement with VERY limited duration. With todays fast paced society, the term should be even MORE limited than originally envisioned. A good term would be 5 years, and the punishment should be $25,000 per infraction with a cap of 200% of the person's yearly income, and they should permit automatic detection and enforcement, as they do for TV licenses in Brittan.

If they did this, we could all trade Star Wars and the Beatles freely and without concern and authors could make the money they deserve for their work.