"So a market ceases to be a market, or is only marginally so, when its stasis is reached."
Not so much that, Frank. More like each market is its own "game".
Thus, we see more market categorization in stock markets: technology indexes, oil index, gold index, transport, gambling, and of course, on Amex, the Internet Infrastructure, Internet Architecture, Telecom, Wireless Holders, and Networking Indexes. And more.
It's true that product needs transport. Historically, the commercial success of content may not have been assured by access to transport and distribution - but without such access, its chances of popularity (and thus, commercial success) were small.
So historically, a food chain grew around content: production, distribution and broadcast. If you wanted your play, script, novel, movie, sitcom, study, software, or idea to reach the world, it had to be passed to agents in the chain.
Not any more.
As an example, what we saw (IMO) in the failed Time-Warner/AOL relationship was an incomplete realization of the new reality - an attempt to graft the internet into the historical food chain around content. The graft didn't take. The genetics were wrong.
The point is that the 'net now allows disintermediation: separation of the transport and distribution markets from the content market. It's now possible for content to attain popularity and commercial success without a paying a tithe to entrenched interests.
But only if the lawmakers see that. One thing's for sure; the lawmakers may not see it, but the entrenched interests sure do.
Jim
|
