<p>Wearing my lawyer hat:</p>
<p>The DMCA is not a regulation, it is a statute, passed by Congress & signed by the President. </p>
<p>Taking it off:<br></p>
<p>For the "free market uber alles" folk, please read about natural monopolies and the history of "common carrier" regulations. The experience of small farmers and railroads may be especially instructive. </p>
<p>For the gentleman who asked for an example of a monopoly in the last century that wasn't related to government regulation, you're going to have to look outside the US. This isn't a coincidence: the Sherman Act, which limited the "free" market in this way was passed in 1895. Beyond our borders, there are plenty of examples. </p>
<p>I put free in quotes because I think you'll find that economists make significant distinctions between situations where buyers and sellers have equal power and where they do not. </p>
<p>Where they do, monopolies are not a worry. Where sellers have greater power, then a monopoly is one possible negative outcome. That I can name every company that can provide me and have control over a network pipe to the outside world tells me that there are few enough of them that individual sellers have way more power than individual buyers in this market. </p>
<p>Seriously, please look up the phrase common carrier. It is a good parallel to the trendy network neutrality phrase and its history night provide some great examples of why regulation can be economically efficient. </p>
<p>As always with policy, the devil is in the details. </p>
<p>Thomas<br>
</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Aug 19, 2010 5:09 PM, "Mike Miller" <<a href="mailto:mbmiller%2Bl@gmail.com" target="_blank">mbmiller+l@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><p><font color="#500050">On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, J.A. Simmons V wrote:<br>
<br>> When you sign a contract with your ISP, what do you ex...</font></p>Not necessarily. With a free market, you get what you get. There are no<br>
guarantees.<br>
<br>
For example, people used to say that a free market would solve the problem<br>
of racism because companies that refused to hire people just because they<br>
were black would not compete as effectively as companies that based hiring<br>
decisions on ability alone. It did not work that way. Companies avoided<br>
hiring high-ability black workers for a number of reasons (e.g., most of<br>
our customers are probably racists who won't want to work with a black<br>
sales rep). It was necessary for the government to force companies to<br>
eliminate racial bias in hiring. Government regulation was able to fix<br>
what a free market could not fix.<br>
<br>
Yes, the regulation was a restriction on freedom -- the freedom of<br>
companies to hire an all-white work force, or the freedom of white workers<br>
not to associate with black people -- but the same regulation enhanced the<br>
freedom and opportunity of the black workers.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Mike<br>
</font><p><font color="#500050"><br>_______________________________________________<br>TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesot...</font></p></blockquote></p>