Mastercard will suspend payments to P2P sites

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

"Two weeks ago, MasterCard felt the wrath of Anonymous Operation Payback-style DDoS attacks after refusing to process payments that were intended to fund WikiLeaks, the website which began leaking confidential US diplomatic cables last month. Now, the company is preparing to head down another controversial path by pledging to deny transactions which support websites that host pirated movies, music, games, or other copyrighted content. MasterCard lobbyists have also been in talks with entertainment industry trade groups, including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and have made it clear that the company will support the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), sources close to the talks have said."

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/22/2113241/RIAA-MPAA-Recruit-MasterCard-As-Internet-Police

So mastercard will block payments to sites MAFIAA tell him to, WITHOUT a court order.
What's next ? They randomly block accounts of people with a hair color they don't like ?

[1713551315]

1713551315

[1713551315]

1713551315

[1713551315]

1713551315

[kiba]

They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like.

You are right. But there is not a lot of choice around... In most banks there is only Visa or Mastercard, so it is a nasty oligopoly.
If VISA starts to doing the same, then we may have a problem.

First they came for the torrents...
Then they came for bitcoin.

[hugolp]

They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like.

Yes, but us as consumers get to tell other consumers what this companies are doing to influence their decision towards more respectful ways of doing business.

Non-violent action towards disrespectful companies is a basic tool of the market.

[genjix]

Non-violent action towards disrespectful companies is a basic tool of the market.

lol. whatever you say.

[kiba]

lol. whatever you say.

Use bitcoin!

[JohnDoe]

I'm glad they are doing this, hopefully it will result in faster bitcoin adoption.

[FreeMoney]

They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like.

Yeah, because private companies are free 

If I start "Whities BBQ, no blacks a loud" I get fines until they put me in a cage and then killed if I try to get away. That's the rule on my private company when there are millions of alternate ways to get food, but a huge monolithic company with government connections, they get to be private. Nice, nice double standard. When these private companies announce that they won't support a government that violates our freedom to associate or not then I'll happily grant them the same.

I'm going to stop dealing with them all ASPA, with malice.

[hugolp]

Non-violent action towards disrespectful companies is a basic tool of the market.

lol. whatever you say.

Whats wrong with what I said?

Consumer information is not something important for the market?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like.

Actually after giving it some thought, i think the free market's "They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like" approach is no longer valid.
The reason for this is that when government is involved, we are no longer talking about free market.

And the Mastercard's decision is purely political, so it has actually nothing to do with free market.
This is what happens when government's start to mess in the economy.

[Anonymous]

This isnt the free market - it's corporatism or soft fascism.

[kiba]

This isnt the free market - it's corporatism or soft fascism.

The free market will no longer be squashed without resistance! IT WILL RESISTS AND PROPAGATE ITSELF!

Through bitcoin, of course.

[wumpus]

This isnt the free market - it's corporatism or soft fascism.

Indeed. The problem isn't that mastercard/visa reject customers. As companies, I guess they have the right to do that. The problem is that the banking sector is so monopolized and closed that even being rejected by one bank is a huge problem.

Of course, bitcoin kind of addresses this problem as everyone is his/her own bank. This is an opportunity!

[Timo Y]

They are private companies. They get to accept or deny whoever they like.

These companies happily support government coercion when it works in their favour so I have sympathy for people who suggest coercive solutions.

[wumpus]

It appears to be a common theme that free market, without any form of cartel or monopoly protection will (due to economy of scale and political lobbying?) eventually collapse into a form of oligopoly in which the customer is oppressed.

[hugolp]

It appears to be a common theme that free market, without any form of cartel or monopoly protection will (due to economy of scale and political lobbying?) eventually collapse into a form of oligopoly in which the customer is oppressed.

Its the other way around. The free market stops cartels or monopolies. A cartel in the free market does not last due to competition. Its the government that with regulations helps some industries over others and creates cartels, or in some cases even monopolies.

You have to keep in mind that monopoly used to mean a government sanctioned enterprise. Everybody understood that only the government using its monopoly in force can impose a monopoly. But in the beginning of the XX century the meaning started to change as a way to justify more government control.

This is long, but in short you have to understand that a company internally functions in a "socialistic" way, or better said, internally functions in some sort of central planning (the degree changes depending on the structure of the company). Therefore as a company grows it faces problems because of its size and becomes inefficient (the same way a government can not centrally plan a country because its too big). At that moment the little ones can outcompete, and the only option for the big company is to use its financial muscle to get the politicians to enact regulations to stop the competition (usually under the excuse of benefiting the consumer) so it can keep operating.

In reality the people demanding more regulations are the corporatists.

[jago25_98]

I find this interesting. To expand,

We know companies work best at below something like 120 employees, then beyond that you've got communication problems.
If I was growing a company, I got to that size and still wanted to grow I would sell off with clauses or keeping a controlling 51% share and move into something different.

It's something we see a lot; big company buys small company. Advantages of the small company are lost in the big company.

In my opinion, the company model itself is not great. It may be possible to marketise everything, calculate costs in realtime and quote to the customer live.

There are things favouring small companies but there are also things favouring big companies of course.

I always said if I were king the first thing I would do is massively democracise the antitrust bodies and then empower them. I'd do that on the basis that that would do more for the economy than anything else.

"At that moment the little ones can outcompete, and the only option for the big company is to use its financial muscle to get the politicians to enact regulations to stop the competition"

To be clear - "if it wants to continue growing in the same field"
you can still create sub companies in a conglomerate and go into different markets. But you then have to think about how linked those companies are. Any communication between those companies of say 120 employees would have to be very well thought out....

and all that would be in competition to monopolies already in the industry you're already established in. Perhaps that would be reacted to by going into industries that support the business instead.


I've thought about this quite a lot. I think if you can find a way to leverage that 120 employee limit you're reducing anti competitive practice by design.

Thoughts?

[RodeoX]

I'm glad they are doing this, hopefully it will result in faster bitcoin adoption.

I found bitcoin because I wanted to donate to wikileaks after MasterCard cut them off. Now I use bitcoin for some of the things I would have used MasterCard for.
Don't tread on me  

EDIT

[AmpEater]

I'm glad they are doing this, hopefully it will result in faster bitcoin adoption.

I found bitcoin because I wanted to donate to WikiLeaks. I wanted to donate to WikiLeaks when MasterCard cut them off.
Don't tread on me MF.

FTFW

This is also why I got into bitcoin.

I am riding my bike to the bank, depositing enough cash to pay off every mastercard I have...and closing them down