💀
@0x00 @holot @igel @canidaeportent@kiwifarms.cc @stargoose @p
You don't need governments to sustain monopolies. Yes, governments do have their own monopolies, usually in military equipment.
All you need to have a monopoly is a company that is big enough to start buying up everyone around. Look at Disney, and tell me you honestly don't believe they're on the road of attempting to create a monopoly.
> You don't need governments to sustain monopolies.
> Look at Disney, and tell me you honestly don't believe they're on the road of attempting to create a monopoly.
You must choose one of the two.
(Unless you think Disney can prevent people that aren't Disney from making movies?)
@p @holot @igel @canidaeportent@kiwifarms.cc @stargoose @0x00
>Unless you think Disney can prevent people that aren't Disney from making movies?
If they manage to buy everyone else, yes they can. They buy everything, control all the movie making market, and even if some indie bastard somehow manage to shoot and edit a movie, Disney will be able to prevent them from showing it in a theater or any decent streaming service.
That's how monopolies work, and while stupid governments can help form and maintain them, they can rise and exist on their own.
> They buy everything, control all the movie making market, and even if some indie bastard somehow manage to shoot and edit a movie, Disney will be able to prevent them from showing it in a theater or any decent streaming service.
That's odd...how do they stop streaming services or independent theaters?
How do they stop piracy without state enforcement of copyright?
@p @holot @igel @canidaeportent@kiwifarms.cc @stargoose @0x00
>independent theaters/streaming services
The second they have any chance of of getting somewhat big, they'll buy them off, and you're back at monopoly. That's the biggest weapon monopolies will have. They'll just buy everyone off.
Maybe you can fight for a while with piracy, but they'll manage to push much harder DRM measures in time. Imagine actual body checks when entering theaters to make sure you're not carrying a camera.
> they'll buy them off, and you're back at monopoly
What's wrong with that? In practical terms, I mean, not hand-wavy "monopoly bad" or "competition good".
And what makes you think, when it becomes apparent that Disney Buys Everyone, that this won't create an entertainment bubble and that Disney will maintain its policy of buying everyone and that Disney will maintain its *budget*? Or do they buy everyone for free? Who's manning their money-printer?
> they'll manage to push much harder DRM measures in time.
Amazon, Apple, Bandcamp, prolly others, all stopped with DRM, because there's a threshold: after a certain point, people stop buying.
@p @holot @igel @canidaeportent@kiwifarms.cc @stargoose @0x00
>people stop buying
Not when you're the only entertainment available.
>I mean, not hand-wavy "monopoly bad" or "competition good".
It's kinda silly to say I can't argue via competition. In the end, lack of competition IS the cause of the biggest problem for monopolies: stagnation. Disney isn't even a monopoly yet, and we're already seeing it getting lazy, and making worse and worse movies. If they really were in a position to control everything, what reason would they really have to innovate in storytelling? People are still gonna go watch them, cause it's still an experience they're after, but they're gonna pay for worse and worse products. Look how bad the Disney Star Wars movies were, and yet they're still making profits off the franchise.
Here's a different example, since I talked about the military industry earlier. When was the last time serious development was made with jet fighters? It was with F-35, which took ages to make. And guess what? It's basically worse than what existed before it, at pretty much every role. But the makers still sold them, and the US army still bought them, literally paying for the privilege of downgrading their fighting performance. That's the shit that happens with monopolies.
> Not when you're the only entertainment available.
Yes, without movies to entertain me, I will literally die.
> It's kinda silly to say I can't argue via competition.
I didn't. I said not to hand-wave.
> In the end, lack of competition IS the cause of the biggest problem for monopolies: stagnation.
You know what happened to the record industry in the 80s? People stopped buying.
> we're already seeing it getting lazy, and making worse and worse movies.
Oh, so the system works. If their movies are not what people want to see, then people will stop spending money on them. (Do note: "good" and "something people will buy" are different.)
So what makes a thing worse, and who decides? I don't like MMOs but people love them. I sure as hell wouldn't touch Fortnite with someone else's computer, but it's wildly popular. I think it's a crime that you're not running Plan 9, which is a better OS than whatever you're running (unless you're running Plan 9) but who decides?
Maybe people buy the shit Disney's churning out because they have a different idea of what constitutes "good" than you do.
> It's basically worse than what existed before it, at pretty much every role.
Based on years-old information about previous revisions, yes.
But let's say it's exactly as you describe, in which case it's a pity that there are no market forces in play and only the same few companies that the state favors.