29 May 2003
Unclear Channels

Below is a particularly florid piece of prose (even for The Register) but pretty much dead on. Why would I, a pretty dyed in the wool libertarian, be against such a "deregulation" move? Because while in the "free market" a monopoly could not sustain itself for long as more and more new forces enter the market to take it on, we have anything but a "free market" in media content or other "intellectual property" in general. Copyright and patent law is being used to constrain and direct the market to the advantage of the larger players - content is what media "sells", after all. Therefore once this deregulation takes effect you will see increased concentration, rather than, as the case when the airlines were first deregulated, increased competition.

If you're going to deregulate this market, then damnit, deregulate it! That means, of course, restructuring onerous IP laws to accurately reflect a free market, rathen than a monopoly as is currectly the case. If it were done in this fashion, then the barriers to entry would truely be lowered, and you could expect to see greater diversity. As it stands, well, I hope everybody likes ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN on TV and Clear Channel 'national' radio for your drive time ....

Clear Channelization of America to commence Monday. Opinion Media pigopolist coup d'etat on schedule [The Register]

00:00 /Copywrongs | 0 comments | permanent link