The Washington Post‘s Steven Pearlstein has an interesting column, today,
on the changes that technology has forced on the entertainment business,
by giving consumers more choices and control over what they see and when
told us for decades that it prospered only when it gave consumers what
they wanted. But, Pearlstein argues that video-on-demand has shown us
“what a big lie it was.” He notes:
“Thanks to TiVo and other Internet-based technologies, people
not only can watch what they want when they want to watch it,
but they can also do so without having to watch commercials.
Suddenly, the whole concept of a prime-time lineup has been
tossed out the window, along with an economic model that’s
been around since Geritol decided to sponsor the Ted Mack
amateur hour.”
The column tells how the economics of the industry will change. “Much less
of what we think of as television will be paid for by advertisers, and more by
viewers.” Networks will lose market share and power. Hollywood studios
will become “indifferent about how you choose to get a movie.” Price will
depend on the timing of your selection, the popularity of the movie, and medium
chosen. The studios “that do best will be those that make, or buy, a wider
range of well-done movies for a variety of niche audiences reached through
targeted marketing and distribution channels.”
Pearlstein concludes: “There are many ways to describe this new entertainment
industry. The ones I like are competitive, efficient and consumer-driven.”
mid-argument
the touch of a child’s hair
soft from rain
Matt Morden Morden Haiku (Nov. 9, 2005)
After spending yesterday among scores of antitrust-minded lawyers and
is another strong wake-up call for me — a reminder that I’ve been ignoring my
competition-consumer advocate alter ego and need to re-connect again here
on this weblog.
May 2003, the dozen years that I spent immersed in antitrust law and competition
policy at the Federal Trade Commission left me with two beliefs:
First, professional organizations, and the ethical codes they write
and purport to enforce, often needlessly stifle competition under the guise of
protecting clients. And,
Second, as with any other product or services, the consumers of law-
related services are best served when there is healthy competition among
providers, a broad array of options and prices, and sufficient information to
permit intelligent choices. There needs to be a very good reason for depriving
law clients the benefits of competition, and increasing the wealth of lawyers
doesn’t quite make the grade.
Furthermore, the next decade practicing “main street law” left me with the “lasting
impression that the average consumer of legal services is often both shortchanged
and overbilled — with too little respect, information and choice offered by the legal
profession, and too little protection from those running the disciplinary systems that
oversee lawyers.”[For more on my attitude toward antitrust law and competition policy
as tools for consumer sovereignty and consumer protection, see our prior posts:
Our Microsoft Security Woes.”]
“oilcanHNs” In 2003, I declared that July 2, the “birthday” of the Sherman Act (1890) can be seen
as Consumer Independence Day — offering American consumers freedom from monop-
olist and cartel activities that would raise prices and limit choices, even those done from
a sense of paternalism or noblesse oblige. Like all rights, of course, they need to be
vigorously guarded and asserted in order to survive and serve their purpose.
From now on, the f/k/a gang, is going to do more guarding and asserting of the consumer’s
right to competition, technological innovation and efficiency, and the information needed to
make informed choices — the right, that is, to a consumer-driven marketplace. Lawyers
and members of other professions and pseudo-professions, who couch their restrictions
on competition in terms of consumer protection will receive special attention, of course.
at the height
of the argument the old couple
pour each other tea
mid-argument
the senior partner
has a senior minute
mid-argument –
opposing counsel crosses
her legs
from D.C. 
I saw a few VanGogh’s at the National Art Gallery
potluck
Yes, I’m on vacation this week, and am staying away from 
Our buddy Prof. 
It seems to your humble editor that, as with p/i lawyers and their sticky fee levels, 
This got me wondering whether my Catholic weblogging friends and 
At his 
dagosan has yet to pen a proper poem for the Days of the Dead. At
“Although many cultures see death as a cause for sadness rather than celebration, the cultures that observe Los Dias de Los Muertos do not: Death is not seen as something to be faced with fear but as the doorway to other levels of existence. It is believed that during Los Dias de Los Muertos the souls of the dead return to visit the lviign – a cause for celebation — just like the welcome given a dear friend or relative who visits after a long time away.