Felony Interference Of A Business Model Is Not A Crime
from the it's-called-competition dept
Last week, in writing about how Viacom boss Philippe Dauman appeared to be wrong on almost every one of his assumptions about the trends and economics facing his business, someone challenged my thoughts in the comments, saying something to the effect of that it is "illegal interrupt a business model." That's a laughable statement -- but it seems to be one that pervades many of the stories we write about on Techdirt. Rather than recognizing that markets change, many companies seem to think that there's something illegal about changing the model a market works on, just because it makes it harder for them to make money -- even if it actually improves things for everyone else. Reader tom mcmillan writes in to point to a blog post that does a great job making this point, sarcastically referring to the practice as claiming "felony interference with a business model." The point, of course, is that there's nothing illegal about interfering with a business model. It's called competition and both history and economics has shown that it tends to not just lead to better products for consumers, but also opens up new markets for producers to make even more money. If interfering with a business model was illegal, any competition would be illegal.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, crime
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm fed up...
I suppose next the NFL team that won the Super Bowl ( I hope I don't sued for mentioning the Super Bowl without proper consent ) last season will sue the NFL if they don't repeat this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Garage sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if it interferes with police business?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LM5U9l17E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if it interferes with police business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if it interferes with police business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be a consistent analogy they'd sue the team that beat them. But yeah, nice analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What
Much like the people who run the Olympics, the NFL has a trademark on the term "Superbowl" and protects it to the point of absurdity so that your local drinking establishment can't have a "Superbowl Party" but can have a "Big Game Party", or my favorite, an "Uberbowl Party."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What
Although its still not as bad as Major League Baseball (MLB) in the States. They actually claim that statistics from league games fall under their complete control and think they have the rights to prevent people from using them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got it all wrong
He said it very clearly: it's OK to compete by setting up a sandwich shop, but it's not OK to compete by stealing the pizza (and, say, reselling it) because stealing pizza is illegal by itself.
What he means is that when someone threatens your business model, you need to adapt; but when they take illegal actions to do it (illegal by themselves, regardless of your business model) then you have a choice whether to adapt or to seek legal recourse. I think you should both agree on that, whether or not you agree on the best choice for each specific case.
Carme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You got it all wrong
the real question is this: if its completely impossible to stop the act of stealing of the pizza, wouldn't you try to put incentives in place to buy the pizza? or change some other parameters to stop people from stealing it? maybe lower the prices or offer some other service on top of it. iTunes is a perfect example of how willing people are to pay for music. Radiohead is offering their music for *any* price (though the true outcome of that is yet to be seen). Various big name artists are dropping record labels. They're becoming useless. Its time for a new business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You got it all wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You got it all wrong
That's dishonest. The customers of every business would rather get the product for free than pay. Before the Napster-mp3-p2p revolution, music sounded the same and cost the same, and yet very few people decided they'd rather steal CDs. What drove people to "stealing" music (your word) wasn't that the offering changed, it was that "stealing" got so much easier. Piracy exists in all content industries: music, film, electronic games, adult entertainment, etc. You can try and explain the specifics of why each player in each industry is "doing something wrong", or just accept the simple explanation that when people can get something for free they'll do it, regardless of the specific market offering. Of course, ignoring piracy or wishing it away is "doing something wrong" by itself, but what drove the customers to piracy wasn't the businesses doing something wrong, it's the opportunity of getting stuff for free.
"the real question is this: if its completely impossible to stop the act of stealing of the pizza, wouldn't you try to put incentives in place to buy the pizza?"
Of course you should. But the fact you can't eliminate content piracy doesn't make it either right or legal. Piracy is wrong and illegal, regardless of whether it makes sense for any specific business to try and eliminate it or to accept it.
Carme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You got it all wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You got it all wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree but...
"the real question is this: if its completely impossible to stop the act of stealing of the pizza, wouldn't you try to put incentives in place to buy the pizza?"
Of course you should. But the fact you can't eliminate content piracy doesn't make it either right or legal. Piracy is wrong and illegal, regardless of whether it makes sense for any specific business to try and eliminate it or to accept it.
Yes piracy is just wrong as stealing pizza and to remedy that you:
1.Try to get people to buy instead of steal.
2.Use the law within reason to protect the pizza.
Papa John's isn't trying to go after people that don't eat pizza accusing them stealing.
Domino's isn't putting out false reports and lying about stolen pizza statistics to get the government to write the law to their liking.
Pizza Hut doesn't trying to offer you "deal" in which you only serve 5 years in prison for stealing a pizza to prevent a court case where they have weak evidence but still try to put you away for 15 years for stealing said pizza.
Pizza Inn does not assume that everyone wants to steal their pizza and in an effort to prevent stealing they make the ordering process so watered down (no delivery, only certian toppings, raise the price, etc...) that people that once like Pizza Inn either resort to stealing or just go to another pizza shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another re: You got it all wrong
The same example can serve to show that let's say Red Hat doesn't sue people who prefer downloading it for free.
Talking about CDs, I remember when i still bought them, broken jewel cases, missprints in booklets, no booklet at all. Poor studio work on tracks (I have a CD from Flipmode Squad where the song ends in the middle of a word). I still buy a CD now and then, but only from street-musicians. The rest I download. Not from iTunes, I decided to boycot mayors and I hope others wake up and do the same.
Before Napster it happened that I copied CDs or tapes from friends, and others did so too, so it's not something new.
Music is art, and as with every art the buyer decides how much he wants to give, and the owner has the right to sell at that price or not. It should not be the other way around.
And if I cannot buy a real Picasso, I can buy a copy of it, available at some supermarkets.
And about the pizza example: there is no law preventing me making my own pizza, and if I like the one in pizza hut, I can make that one at home, I can even sell it if I want. The only thing I cannot is selling it and saying it's a pizzahut pizza.
It's so copywrong lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRIA wants to make it so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will dance on the graves of Warner, Sony-BMG, and their tools, the MPAA and the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
piracy
if you offer a service and price it fairly people will pay, if they feel you are trying to fuck them, they will pirate.
itunes reduced music downloading, netflix reduced video downloading (for videos on netflix)
rather than trying to fight this they would be well served to fix their business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]