|
I don't think you could say the RIAA is a monopoly because it isn't a company any more than the American Chemistry Council is a monopoly. It's a group of companies that pool resources for lobbying purposes because they have common concerns - sort of like the AFL-CIO. It's also not a cartel because they don't actually set prices for the whole industry. Tower Records was charging one price while Barnes and Noble had another. Meanwhile, Virgin has a third price. This is saying nothing of the fact that EMI may price their albums differently from Decca or Teldec.
I don't think there's any requirement to meet the kind of fair market value you're talking about. That concept has more to do with regulated markets than the music industry. As far as I know, any record company (or retailer) has the right to charge as much as the market will bear. If someone is willing to pay their price, than it's fair market value. Think of this: a Lamborghini costs more than a Ford. Not only that, but it has a higher profit margin, and you can't buy one without dealing with the company's distributor network in America. That doesn't make a monopoly. And the car is expensive, but for that car, $250,000 is market value. If they decided to charge $900,000 it would change nothing, except sales would probably go down. The drop in sales might or might not offset the rise in profit margin. Either way, you still have to pay what they ask to get the product. Exorbitant profits don't justify vigilante acquisition. They might, however, constitute a knuckle-headed business plan that puts people out of work. Nothin' illegal about stupidity.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|