[AnthonyMouse]

> You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about.

That's not really it.

The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute. It can't be the thing that saves you in the case where the government is prohibiting it.

To put it another way, the thing that would really reduce regulations is to get rid of copyright, but maybe we want to be pragmatic here and instead of demanding that it be abolished entirely, we just want the prohibition the government is imposing on the users to not be extended through an unconscionable power grab and destroy the rights of First Sale and Fair Use that have always belonged to the customer.

[mobelkh]

I wouldn't say competition is "most of the time", any market that saturates just turns to shit, incumbents can kill off any upstart competition while squeezing customers dry, not to mention fields that should have a baseline (e.i. healthcare), because squeezing customers dry there literally kills people

[AnthonyMouse]

You're describing uncompetitive markets. That's what happens when the incumbents capture the government to pass regulations that inhibit competition. It's one of the biggest problems caused by regulations.

Healthcare in the US is a great example because the government is so thoroughly captured by the industry. There is no reason competition wouldn't be effective for non-emergency care, if it was allowed to operate. You need an MRI, every provider publishes their prices, you pick the one which is the right combination of affordable and a convenient distance from where you live. Naturally the existing regulations make that impossible -- the tax code has major incentives for employer-provided insurance rather than the employer paying you money and you choosing your plan or paying out of pocket, the insurance is given the incentive to inflate rather than control costs because their profit is capped by law at a specific percentage of claims (so more and bigger claims means more profit instead of less), the AMA lobbies to have the government limit the number of medical residency slots and sustain a doctor shortage, etc.

Notice that food is another market where "squeezing customers dry there literally kills people" but it has nothing like the same problems because it has much more competition.

[michaelt]

> The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute.

Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends).

To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends).

Which is not at all the same thing, not least because software has a network effect. It's like saying that a company having a monopoly on cars is fine because you can walk or take the bus.

If your claim was actually true then copyright would have no purpose since "granting a monopoly" is its mechanism of operation.

> To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example.

How does that help you when the next game comes out, requiring a "Microsoft" account from the first day? The problem is inherently that you can't get the game from anyone -- even a used copy from an existing customer -- without subjecting yourself to the requirement you reject, or de facto being stripped of your rights under First Sale.

[zahlman]

I genuinely can't understand why this comment was downvoted.

[spauldo]

Because a lot of people aren't libertarians?