blinddrew wrote:A start-up, which may want to offer a much better deal to creators, can't compete in this legal space.
Appreciate the reasoning, but here I think where it's incorrect. Or, at best, a speculation.
No start up would ever offer a better deal to creators - not a startup that survives very long at least.
Business works exactly the opposite way: the largest you are, the better condition you can give to customers and supply chain partners, so long there's enough competition
(which is why is so critically important to have strong, continent or world-wide governmental organizations which can produce and enforce anti-monopoly laws.. but that's for another thread).
Small companies are extremely unlikely have the will and the capability to offer any better condition to anyone. Look at Spotify... that is a exactly
a startup for you. Better conditions for the creator are the last thing they care for.
A large company can be challenged in court, if necessary, and cannot fly under the radar. If there is any possibility of getting better conditions for recorded music, it will happen with big companies, good laws and powerful courts which have the wherewithal to enforce them. That a Far West situation could be better in any way, it seems like a totally illogical position to me (I get the romance of course: who doesn't like a good western, but from the comfort of one's sofa?).
So what we're effectively doing is outsourcing our European web censorship to a small collection of large American companies.
This is an over-dramatization built over a misunderstanding. The whole business model of Facebook, Google, YouTube Twitter and companies such as these is to not
discriminate. That's why they have ended up in trouble in the last months! They don't care what political side you are, which tastes you like, which music you do - whatever content attracts public, the better - as it drives advertisement revenue and data collection that can be re-sold for profit. It's the new radio, the new TV, the new supermarket membership card.
In other words these companies have a very, very strong built-in incentive to let pass as much content they can. The less regulation there are, the happier they are. That's why they 've been fighting with their nails to avert this kind of legislation. They only exercise censorship when they are compelled to by a disgusted general public.
If you do think that Fb and Google are too dominant, it makes no sense to oppose the only thing that can rein them in.
Beyond that: once upon a time opening a restaurant ment cooking something and have the space to serve it. Nowadays, any restaurant must comply with stringent hygienic rules, storage protocols, seating regulations etc; it is subject to frequent controls, and gets closed if it doesn't pass. The reason for that is that so the likelihood of dying out of food poisoning is much less, which we may agree to is a good thing. Of course that leads to a much bigger cost in running a restaurant than just cooking some food, and precludes some people from opening one! I guarantee that there are many less startups in restoration than there otherwise could be. Doesn't seem to have ever hurt Jamie a little bit.
There are dozen of other examples, from financial institutions which need quite strict requirements in place to open shop, to garages with security requirements and so forth. Similarly, if you want to deal with copyrighted content on a business basis, it's only natural that you must have in place the machinery to do so - both monitoring and administrative. I'd bloody hope so!