[blowski]

This comment makes me feel uneasy, but I can't work out how to disagree with it.

There are some services which are obviously utilities where monopolies are either bad, or must be otherwise regulated. Power, fuel, healthcare, education - all these fit into that. I guess these are services where inefficient pricing has a broader effect on the market.

Whereas in luxuries, if the price is too high, then it has no real effect other than the peasants don't get to eat the cake.

So my two arguments against your position:

1. Even a monopoly in such a luxury industry is still protected by the law, and so must also be subject to it. Assumedly, as a peasant unable to afford Taylor Swift tickets, I am still not allowed to hack Ticketmaster's servers to get one illegally, or to break into the concert by force even though I'm causing no harm since it's a luxury good.

2. Ticketmaster's profits from its monopoly, if unchecked, allow it to crowd out other parts of the market. It can start to buy local pubs that show music, and extend its monopoly there too. Where do we stop it, and say "that's not a luxury market, so you can't have a monopoly there"?

[chrisseaton]

Unreasonable thought experiment - Taylor Swift has a monopoly on her music catalogue. If we removed that monopoly and allowed others to perform and sell it, it'd reduce costs for working people.

[blowski]

That's exactly how copyright was supposed to work, no? It balanced the artist's ability to make money against making their art accessible to everyone by giving them a temporary monopoly. It's modern incarnation is arguably much closer to a permanent monopoly, and I agree - it should be limited.

[dghlsakjg]

She has a monopoly on some of her recordings. (Famously she doesn’t own the rights to her early recordings)

But she also doesn’t have a monopoly on other artists performing her music, or making recordings of her songs.

[chrisseaton]

I could cover the entire of her latest album and sell copies? I didn't think copyright allowed for that without permission but maybe I don't know copyright like I thought I did.

[dghlsakjg]

Yup. As mentioned, she doesn’t own the rights to her early albums, so this year she actually re-recorded and released alternate versions of her own music.

Cover songs are covered under “compulsory” licenses. You can safely cover an entire album without permission as long as you pay the royalties to the writers.

The entire “songbook” genre is basically this. If you want to drill down further there is an entire category of albums which is just people covering “Dark Side of the Moon”

Musical copyright is a whole other thing.

[blowski]

After 70 years you can, yes (in copyright's original form). It's why I can do a performance of Mozart or Shakespeare today.

Before that, you'd need her permission, and probably share some royalties with her.