BF2S Forums H.r. 4279

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Well that's a no brainer as I pointed out the lobbyist part in the beginning of my little soap box talk.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

It seems the lobbyist for the recording industry have struck yet again in their push to get the new H.R. 4279 legislation, or the PRO-IP Act of 2007, as it is know to pass. This legislation, in a general summary, will grant more power to the already vigilante RIAA, and MPAA. What really intrigues me is the fact that these organizations even exist.
     Back in the day when corruption ran rampant (it still does today but not to the effect that it used to) congress passed a series of acts that came to be know as America's anti-trust legislation. If one were to read the Sherman Act of 1890 as well as the Clayton Act of 1914 they would see that, by definition, the RIAA and MPAA are cartels, or organizations that give the members of the organization an unfair advantage in the market share of their respected industries that allow them to commit acts that are seen as monopolistic in nature. Under the Sherman and Clayton act, under Title 15 of United States legislation the RIAA and MPAA should not be allowed existence because of the controlling market share and unfair advantage given to them with the use of the organization.
     So I ask, why are we giving more power to an organization that should not exist under our own laws?


Link to H.R. 4279

Turquoise wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

It seems the lobbyist for the recording industry have struck yet again in their push to get the new H.R. 4279 legislation, or the PRO-IP Act of 2007, as it is know to pass. This legislation, in a general summary, will grant more power to the already vigilante RIAA, and MPAA. What really intrigues me is the fact that these organizations even exist.
     Back in the day when corruption ran rampant (it still does today but not to the effect that it used to) congress passed a series of acts that came to be know as America's anti-trust legislation. If one were to read the Sherman Act of 1890 as well as the Clayton Act of 1914 they would see that, by definition, the RIAA and MPAA are cartels, or organizations that give the members of the organization an unfair advantage in the market share of their respected industries that allow them to commit acts that are seen as monopolistic in nature. Under the Sherman and Clayton act, under Title 15 of United States legislation the RIAA and MPAA should not be allowed existence because of the controlling market share and unfair advantage given to them with the use of the organization.
     So I ask, why are we giving more power to an organization that should not exist under our own laws?


Link to H.R. 4279

Anyway, yeah...  the RIAA and MPAA do essentially act in ways that violate antitrust laws.  The reason why we allow them, however, is because they are consortiums.  They may often act like a single entity, but they are composed of various companies, and there are enough of them that they don't violate the more obvious parts of antitrust laws.

Turquoise wrote:

True...  but there are always exceptions to the rule.  For example, most power utilities are government supported local monopolies.  They are exempt from antitrust laws.  Major League Baseball is exempt, as well as a few other sports organizations.

I'm not aware of any specific exemptions that would apply to the RIAA or the MPAA, but it is possible there is one.

Still, I hope you're right, because maybe...   just maybe...  some of Congress will agree with you and bitchslap them into regulatory oblivion.

I'm not holding my breath for that though....  lol

FallenMorgan wrote:

The MPAA = the SS.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

True...  but there are always exceptions to the rule.  For example, most power utilities are government supported local monopolies.  They are exempt from antitrust laws.  Major League Baseball is exempt, as well as a few other sports organizations.

I'm not aware of any specific exemptions that would apply to the RIAA or the MPAA, but it is possible there is one.

Still, I hope you're right, because maybe...   just maybe...  some of Congress will agree with you and bitchslap them into regulatory oblivion.

I'm not holding my breath for that though....  lol

Well I have already sent arguments to senators Bayh and Luger of Indiana stating my case. Maybe if we could get something going on bf2s were we get people to send something to their senators we can have our voices heard?