I agree that rogue_ronin is ranting, though I think he's doing so in a rather incoherent fashion. Or maybe it's his philosophy that's incoherent. Hard to say, I guess.
However, pretty clear to me, rogue, that your defining characteristic is not so much your self-proclaimed radicalism, it's
pessimism (coupled with, as per usual, a nice dose of confirmation bias). You conveniently ignore any evidence that does not support your "Big Is Bad" thesis, you seem convinced that humanity is doomed to be spoon-fed content by a single monopolistic entity, and seem incapable of presenting a workable alternative.
Who cares that 30 years ago, there were 3 dominant television networks in the US, and now there are hundreds of television broadcasters? Or that anyone with a good amount of bandwidth can set up their own podcast and/or streaming radio station and access an international audience? Or that independent record labels barely existed in the past, and now are abundant and able to distribute their works easier? Or that a single author who wanted to self-publish 10 years ago had almost no means to do so, and now has options including print on demand and self-publication of e-books to an international audience? Or that the cost of making and distributing digital media has dropped precipitously? Or that political opinions used to be relegated in newspapers to "Letters to the Editor," and now proliferate on blogs? Or that many of the enforcers of copyright are just as likely to be small as large or even non-profit organizations (e.g. ASCAP, BMI)? Or that media companies are getting disrupted by new technologies and new mediums every time we turn around? Or that the companies you decry as vile monopolists barely existed 10 or 20 years ago? Or that right in front of us, there is a veritable explosion in e-book publishers, retailers and distributors, who are rushing to get the public e-books using a wide variety of devices -- many of whom are eschewing DRM?
Mind you, I am aware that this is not exclusively going in one direction; there is media consolidation going on, but lots of proliferation as well. And the proliferation is happening despite the existence and use of the DMCA, DRM, copyright enforcement, and regular kvetching over various issues by rights holders. Your primary response is that some vague amorphous collection of companies is going to mysteriously take this away is not proof of anything but your own pessimism.
And then there's the old saw that "Big Is Bad." How big? What standards should we use -- revenues? Market share? Market capitalization? Number of employees? Number of titles the company publishes and/or retails? The number of mediums the company participates in? The age of the company? Who gets the rights to which artworks when the company is broken up? Is there a "trigger" at which size a company changes from engaging in acceptable behavior to unacceptable one? Is the actual corporate behavior even relevant, or is it just the size that "proves" the company can't be trusted? Does size even matter, since there is apparently an entire "class" of individuals who are all trying to manipulate access to content?
Not to mention that no one is putting a gun to our heads and forcing us to buy from a specific retailer; if people are flocking to Retailer X, where is the moral imperative to
stop these individuals from choosing to buy from Retailer X? Or is everyone -- oh, sorry, everyone except Enlightened Radicals
-- a bunch of capitalist puppets? And if monopolization is as "inevitable" as you believe, what's the point? According to your own beliefs, they're just going to turn into monopolies again anyway....
(I.e. there is the argument that the arts and media have never been free of the prevailing ideological concepts of its given or subsequent eras of creation and transmission; artists are just as much the alleged victims of the economic, religious, political and social strictures imposed on everyone else. The idea that the arts are somehow "free" or "above" such elements, or ever could be, is inconsistent and/or wishful thinking. I.e., if we are living in a world where we are in the implacable grips of various capitalist power structures, the artists of tomorrow will be caught in just as tight a grip of the existing power structures of
their era. There's a big difference between decrying the current economic structures, and crafting a viable replacement that does not generate its own set of problems, restraints and injustices....)
Oh, and who gets the fun job of breaking up a monopoly? A government, I presume. Oh, I'm sure there's
no chance of that getting abused.
Heck, Thailand right now can't even form a government for more than a few months without its political opponents shutting down the country, not to mention that unfortunately corruption is a substantial problem in Thailand. The US can't sponsor public media or arts without meddling in its content. And I presume these are the people that you want to be watchdogs over media...?
So while you proclaim the alleged superiority of your radical pessimism, I look around and see a world where information flows more freely than at any time in human history (even with, or despite, the presence of DRM), and when almost anyone in a democratic society has a better education and access to more artworks and media than all but the wealthiest families as recently as 200 years ago. I.e. the trend now is towards
more access and availability, not less.
P.S.: I was reading Chomsky, Foucault and Marx while you were probably still in short pants. The novelty of your perspective has long since worn off for me.