• shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Monopolies are not about exclusively for one specific thing, but about scale and the availability of alternatives. It’s not like you can only buy pictures or music from one artist, just that you have to buy art from the artist who made it.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a sense it is a monopoly, just a very narrow one. The first step to identifying a monopoly is identifying the relevant market, and that is quite hard to do, actually.

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The contradiction is that you imply copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. It can be, but it usually isn’t, especially with art. So using it as a counter argument here makes no sense.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          copyright is always a government enforced monopoly.

          that’s the only thing it is. it’s a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it’s not in relation to art?

          • shrugal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don’t have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created.

            As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can’t patent art.

              • shrugal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that’s not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they’re two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons.

                  • shrugal@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So, what does that have to do with the exclusive rights vs monopoly discussion? Both give you exclusive rights, doesn’t matter that they come from two different sets of laws.