Price fixing - the Feds throw the e-book at Apple

[Seth]

Here's some food for thought:

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

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

"Net neutrality" is yet another liberal socialist interference with the free markets. "The Net" is not a single thing, it's an accumulation of private property (servers and transmission equipment) working in cooperation for the purposes of making a profit. It's not a "public utility" because the public does not own it, private individuals and companies do.

"Net neutrality" is nothing more than a 4h Amendment violation of property rights wherein the government seizes through regulation (regulatory taking) the private property of individuals for public use without just compensation.

If the government wants to make "the internet" a public utility, then the government must BUY the infrastructure from it's owners at a fair market price by invoking eminent domain. It cannot simply tell a private property owner that it must give it's property to the public for free. That is flatly unconstitutional.

Not even upon the insistence of a bunch of tightwad socialist nitwits who thing they are entitled to something for nothing.

[Animavore]

Here's some food for thought:

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

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

"Net neutrality" is yet another liberal socialist interference with the free markets. "The Net" is not a single thing, it's an accumulation of private property (servers and transmission equipment) working in cooperation for the purposes of making a profit. It's not a "public utility" because the public does not own it, private individuals and companies do.

"Net neutrality" is nothing more than a 4h Amendment violation of property rights wherein the government seizes through regulation (regulatory taking) the private property of individuals for public use without just compensation.

If the government wants to make "the internet" a public utility, then the government must BUY the infrastructure from it's owners at a fair market price by invoking eminent domain. It cannot simply tell a private property owner that it must give it's property to the public for free. That is flatly unconstitutional.

Not even upon the insistence of a bunch of tightwad socialist nitwits who thing they are entitled to something for nothing.

Why do you think your "Fourth Amendment" matters a fuck to Irish people?

[Seth]

Here's some food for thought:

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

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

"Net neutrality" is yet another liberal socialist interference with the free markets. "The Net" is not a single thing, it's an accumulation of private property (servers and transmission equipment) working in cooperation for the purposes of making a profit. It's not a "public utility" because the public does not own it, private individuals and companies do.

"Net neutrality" is nothing more than a 4h Amendment violation of property rights wherein the government seizes through regulation (regulatory taking) the private property of individuals for public use without just compensation.

If the government wants to make "the internet" a public utility, then the government must BUY the infrastructure from it's owners at a fair market price by invoking eminent domain. It cannot simply tell a private property owner that it must give it's property to the public for free. That is flatly unconstitutional.

Not even upon the insistence of a bunch of tightwad socialist nitwits who thing they are entitled to something for nothing.

Why do you think your "Fourth Amendment" matters a fuck to Irish people?

Ever read it? Why don't you do so and then tell us if you find the principles that it states to be good or bad and why?

I don't know about you, but I don't want the government being allowed to take my property for public use without justly compensating me for it. Of course in the UK they are used to having the King come along and take whatever the fuck he wants from them. If that's the way you like to live in Ireland, fine by me, but what makes you think that American internet providers give a fuck what the dependent class socialist greedy Irish people want?

[Animavore]

Here's some food for thought:

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

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

"Net neutrality" is yet another liberal socialist interference with the free markets. "The Net" is not a single thing, it's an accumulation of private property (servers and transmission equipment) working in cooperation for the purposes of making a profit. It's not a "public utility" because the public does not own it, private individuals and companies do.

"Net neutrality" is nothing more than a 4h Amendment violation of property rights wherein the government seizes through regulation (regulatory taking) the private property of individuals for public use without just compensation.

If the government wants to make "the internet" a public utility, then the government must BUY the infrastructure from it's owners at a fair market price by invoking eminent domain. It cannot simply tell a private property owner that it must give it's property to the public for free. That is flatly unconstitutional.

Not even upon the insistence of a bunch of tightwad socialist nitwits who thing they are entitled to something for nothing.

Why do you think your "Fourth Amendment" matters a fuck to Irish people?

Ever read it? Why don't you do so and then tell us if you find the principles that it states to be good or bad and why?

I don't know about you, but I don't want the government being allowed to take my property for public use without justly compensating me for it. Of course in the UK they are used to having the King come along and take whatever the fuck he wants from them. If that's the way you like to live in Ireland, fine by me, but what makes you think that American internet providers give a fuck what the dependent class socialist greedy Irish people want?

Evasion. I asked you first. Why would we give a shit how you do things half way across the fucking planet? You have this awful habit of thinking America is all that matters.

[Seth]

Evasion. I asked you first. Why would we give a shit how you do things half way across the fucking planet? You have this awful habit of thinking America is all that matters.

I didn't evade you, I answered you fully by writing the following paragraph:

I don't know about you, but I don't want the government being allowed to take my property for public use without justly compensating me for it. Of course in the UK they are used to having the King come along and take whatever the fuck he wants from them. If that's the way you like to live in Ireland, fine by me, but what makes you think that American internet providers give a fuck what the dependent class socialist greedy Irish people want?

What part of the first sentence is unclear to you?

And what about the final sentence is unclear? You can do in Ireland anything you want...in Ireland. But your "vote" has no weight when it comes to demanding "net neutrality" of American internet providers. You get what you pay for and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

You want to use American assets, you pay for them.

[Animavore]

You can do in Ireland anything you want...in Ireland.

Yes. That's my point.

But your "vote" has no weight when it comes to demanding "net neutrality" of American internet providers.

Yes. Obviously. And I didn't. No one did.

[Seth]

You can do in Ireland anything you want...in Ireland.

Yes. That's my point.

But your "vote" has no weight when it comes to demanding "net neutrality" of American internet providers.

Yes. Obviously. And I didn't. No one did.

Except all those furriners bloviating about their "right" to free stuff on the Internet who project their unreasonable demands over here.

[Animavore]

You can do in Ireland anything you want...in Ireland.

Yes. That's my point.

But your "vote" has no weight when it comes to demanding "net neutrality" of American internet providers.

Yes. Obviously. And I didn't. No one did.

Except all those furriners bloviating about their "right" to free stuff on the Internet who project their unreasonable demands over here.

Whatever. I'm not one of them.

[Hermit]

no cartel can survive being undercut by free-market competition

, provided the market is free. Which it isn't when it allows monopolies. Apple is a case in point. It made an agreement with five major publishing companies to sell copyrighted material only to Apple, who can then resell it at artificially inflated prices.

That's not a "monopoly"

Actually, it is. As you pointed out, Apple has signed up five major publishing contracts to sell their products exclusively to Apple. In other words, it has a monopoly on those products.

Supply and demand. With an in-demand product, the producer can "inflate" the price as much as he likes in order to make a bigger profit, but if he ups it too much, consumers will stop buying.

As far as those particular products are concerned, the vaunted law regarding supply and demand has been demolished by virtue of Apple having contractually monopolised the supply, leaving it in a position to dictate prices rather than letting market forces prevail. The consumer is left with two options: Buy the desired e-book at the price the sole supplier dictates, or not buy it at all.

If you want a Ford, you have to buy it from Ford.

Not in Australia, you don't. Ford sells its cars to a multitude of retailers, who then compete with each other for customers on price and service. There is not one sole supplier of Ford cars with exclusive, monopolistic rights on Ford products.

[Seth]

no cartel can survive being undercut by free-market competition

, provided the market is free. Which it isn't when it allows monopolies. Apple is a case in point. It made an agreement with five major publishing companies to sell copyrighted material only to Apple, who can then resell it at artificially inflated prices.

That's not a "monopoly"

Actually, it is. As you pointed out, Apple has signed up five major publishing contracts to sell their products exclusively to Apple. In other words, it has a monopoly on those products.

That's not the definition of "monopoly."

mo·nop·o·ly
[ mə nóppəlee ]
control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service

Apple does not hold a monopoly over the distribution of written materials, either printed or E-books. It merely has an exclusive contract with only FIVE of the hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of publishers with intellectual property to market to the E-book market. That they are the five "major" publishers is irrelevant, that's just good marketing strategy. Apple does NOT control the E-book industry, not by a long shot. Amazon.com and the Kindle are proof absolute of that.

If Apple was the only one on the planet (or in the country) who had E-book hardware and materials to distribute to them and THE GOVERNMENT prohibited anyone else from engaging in free-market competition, THAT would be a monopoly.

Apple merely has a dominant market share through canny and wise business contracts and arrangements. Nothing is preventing Amazon.com from offering OTHER intellectual properties in E-book form, including in forms that can only be used exclusively by their own readers. What Amazon and the Marxists are pissed about is that Apple managed to steal a march on Amazon by locking a certain FEW popular publishers into an exclusive contract.

No way is that a monopoly.

Supply and demand. With an in-demand product, the producer can "inflate" the price as much as he likes in order to make a bigger profit, but if he ups it too much, consumers will stop buying.

As far as those particular products are concerned, the vaunted law regarding supply and demand has been demolished by virtue of Apple having contractually monopolised the supply, leaving it in a position to dictate prices rather than letting market forces prevail. The consumer is left with two options: Buy the desired e-book at the price the sole supplier dictates, or not buy it at all.

So what? Using this dubious logic then Apple itself is an "illegal monopoly" because only it manufactures and distributes Apple products and doesn't allow anyone else to do so. That's nonsense of course. Consumers do not have a right to buy an exclusive product from a competitor of the distributor at a discounted price.

Barnes and Nobel is not required to charge the same price as Borders or Amazon.com merely because customers in its store have the choice of buying at the market price or not buying.

It's ridiculous to maintain that marketing and market protection constitutes an illegal monopolistic activity.

As I said, if you want a Ford, you have to buy it from Ford. If Ford wants to draw up a contract with Mercedes Benz that says that the only place in the US you can buy a Benz is at a Ford store, that's not a "monopoly" of the auto industry because no one is compelled to buy either a Ford or a Benz. They can go buy a Subaru or a Chevy.

It's exactly the same with Apple and E-books. They have an agreement with the five publishers to exclusively market the E-book versions of the publisher's owned property. That's within the rights of both the publisher and the distributor.

If, on the other hand, THE GOVERNMENT says that the only place anyone can buy any automobile is from Ford, THAT is a monopoly. Huge difference.

There is no "monopoly" status for "those products" other than a government regulation forbidding anyone else from marketing that or another similar product. Monopoly connotes a total and exclusive control of an INDUSTRY or entire segment of the market. If the government said only Texaco was allowed to produce and sell gasoline, THAT is a monopoly. That Texaco might have the dominant market share, or even the exclusive market share in a region, so long as others are not FORBIDDEN from opening their own gas stations there is no "monopoly" on gasoline distribution. It's merely market forces determining who is the best at marketing their fuel to consumers and the fact that Shell can't sell a gallon in a Texaco town does not make Texaco a monopoly in fuel distribution.

Barnes and Nobel is perfectly entitled to go to a publisher and say "We'll only carry your books if you give us an exclusive distribution contract."

If you want a Ford, you have to buy it from Ford.

Not in Australia, you don't. Ford sells its cars to a multitude of retailers, who then compete with each other for customers on price and service. There is not one sole supplier of Ford cars with exclusive, monopolistic rights on Ford products.

That's FORD'S CHOICE of marketing strategy. If Ford wanted to be the exclusive seller of its vehicles it has the right to do so, just as Apple has the right to be the sole and exclusive seller of Apple computer products and Apple-contracted E-books.

Ford chose another marketing model for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean they have a "monopoly" on the motor vehicle market, merely exclusive rights to market the Ford lineup. Chevy cannot demand that Ford supply its showrooms with Ford vehicles. Nor can a private auto lot owner demand that Ford provide him with product. It's Ford's product and it can distribute it any way it sees fit.

[Hermit]

no cartel can survive being undercut by free-market competition

, provided the market is free. Which it isn't when it allows monopolies. Apple is a case in point. It made an agreement with five major publishing companies to sell copyrighted material only to Apple, who can then resell it at artificially inflated prices.

That's not a "monopoly"

Actually, it is. As you pointed out, Apple has signed up five major publishing contracts to sell their products exclusively to Apple. In other words, it has a monopoly on those products.

That's not the definition of "monopoly."

mo·nop·o·ly
[ mə nóppəlee ]
control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service

[MiM]

Of course we need fully open markets, without any government involvement what so ever. First thing is to rip out all laws regulating intellectual property. If I see a nice piece of technology, or music, or whatever, I should be fully free to copy it, and sell the copies, if I can. That's only freedom ffs. And why stop there. Why is the government and their pesky police forces stopping me from taking whatever I want. If I like my neighbours car, or house I can take it. Provided I am stronger than him, or faster with my gun. Now that is free competition if anything.

Hyperbolic, non-responsive red herring straw man argument. Feh.

So then you do want a strongly protected and controlled market, after all? You only want the protection to be completely one sided?

[Seth]

Of course we need fully open markets, without any government involvement what so ever. First thing is to rip out all laws regulating intellectual property. If I see a nice piece of technology, or music, or whatever, I should be fully free to copy it, and sell the copies, if I can. That's only freedom ffs. And why stop there. Why is the government and their pesky police forces stopping me from taking whatever I want. If I like my neighbours car, or house I can take it. Provided I am stronger than him, or faster with my gun. Now that is free competition if anything.

Hyperbolic, non-responsive red herring straw man argument. Feh.

So then you do want a strongly protected and controlled market, after all? You only want the protection to be completely one sided?

Strawman.

[MiM]

Of course we need fully open markets, without any government involvement what so ever. First thing is to rip out all laws regulating intellectual property. If I see a nice piece of technology, or music, or whatever, I should be fully free to copy it, and sell the copies, if I can. That's only freedom ffs. And why stop there. Why is the government and their pesky police forces stopping me from taking whatever I want. If I like my neighbours car, or house I can take it. Provided I am stronger than him, or faster with my gun. Now that is free competition if anything.

Hyperbolic, non-responsive red herring straw man argument. Feh.

So then you do want a strongly protected and controlled market, after all? You only want the protection to be completely one sided?

Strawman.

How can both of those be strawmen at the same time? As well as your well documented aversion to any rights on the consumer part. Please explain.

[Coito ergo sum]

Capitalism requires regulation to function properly. A free market must also account for anti-competitive forces, of which price-fixing, trusts, cartels, and monopolies are examples.

There are many examples of laws and regulations that must exist for capitalism to function in a meaningful way -

Like, for example -- limited liability laws -- corporations have limited liability because of laws, not because a group of people can band together and call themselves a fictitious name and pretend to absolve themselves of liability. Shareholders of corporations have limited liability because we have corporation codes as part of our laws. Without that, raising capital would not be practical because investors would be exposing themselves to personal liability for the debts of the companies they invest in.

A free market requires law and order, so we need various laws against theft, fraud, trespass and all that.

There have to be commercial transaction laws to regulate how liens, security interests, mortgages and commercial paper function. Securities laws regarding stocks, bonds and such.

The list goes on and on.

The idea that capitalism means that we don't have any government is some strange idea that seems to be born of a modern day ignorance of what capitalism is and how it works.