On the Role of Government
16/8/10 13:53![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
a-new-machine.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, I was reading a rather bizarre piece about the ongoing talks between musicFIRST, a group that represents music rightsholders (including the RIAA), and the National Association of Broadcasters, the radio lobby. Basically they're coming close to an agreement. musicFIRST wants the NAB to pay for broadcasting music, and the NAB is resisting this. All in all it looks like a fairly straightforward civil suit in the making, if mediation fails. musicFIRST stops allowing radio to play its music without royalties, and radio sues for... something or other that I'm sure their creative lawyers would come up with to save the entire industry.
Except they're no longer arguing about that. Instead, musicFIRST is bartering its support for a bill to include FM chips in all cell phones and mobile electronics for $100 million per year - less than the radio stations would pay under a full-on royalty scheme. So they had an argument over what to pay, and decided on forcing an entirely unrelated industry to drastically change its production standards and include possibly problematic (and definitely outdated) technology to ensure that radio stays in place to keep giving musicFIRST money.
This got me to thinking over the role of government. One popular argument is that government exists to act as a mediator between special interest groups. This looks like one instance of that gone off the rails. Government here isn't a mediator - it's a bargaining chip, its power over others used by two unrelated parties to come to an agreement between two antagonistic parties.
Me personally, I never bought the "mediator" argument. Government is there to balance competing interests, but not those presented to it by corporate supplicants who come with a fully-crafted legislative plan for Congress to sign off on. The same thing can be seen in the Google-Verizon proposal. There, two of the biggest players in the space come up with solutions based on their interests and needs, and present it for sanction as public policy. It's hardly a democratic process. The interests balanced should always be those of the public vs. those who are restricted or impeded by the legislation. How many people really want an FM tuner on their phone? How would the inclusion of that antenna affect smartphone development? None of that is considered - just getting more listeners for an old medium. The interest groups do a very good job of fulfilling the interests of their clients. Unfortunately, our interest group - the elected officials in Congress - do a pretty awful job of representing ours.
Except they're no longer arguing about that. Instead, musicFIRST is bartering its support for a bill to include FM chips in all cell phones and mobile electronics for $100 million per year - less than the radio stations would pay under a full-on royalty scheme. So they had an argument over what to pay, and decided on forcing an entirely unrelated industry to drastically change its production standards and include possibly problematic (and definitely outdated) technology to ensure that radio stays in place to keep giving musicFIRST money.
This got me to thinking over the role of government. One popular argument is that government exists to act as a mediator between special interest groups. This looks like one instance of that gone off the rails. Government here isn't a mediator - it's a bargaining chip, its power over others used by two unrelated parties to come to an agreement between two antagonistic parties.
Me personally, I never bought the "mediator" argument. Government is there to balance competing interests, but not those presented to it by corporate supplicants who come with a fully-crafted legislative plan for Congress to sign off on. The same thing can be seen in the Google-Verizon proposal. There, two of the biggest players in the space come up with solutions based on their interests and needs, and present it for sanction as public policy. It's hardly a democratic process. The interests balanced should always be those of the public vs. those who are restricted or impeded by the legislation. How many people really want an FM tuner on their phone? How would the inclusion of that antenna affect smartphone development? None of that is considered - just getting more listeners for an old medium. The interest groups do a very good job of fulfilling the interests of their clients. Unfortunately, our interest group - the elected officials in Congress - do a pretty awful job of representing ours.
