A victory for consumers

Hip Hip Hooray! Did you know... we all just won a big victory! The Infotainment industries of America keep fighting and winning for us consumers. Here are two of the most spectacular victories from recent weeks:

The TV Industry

“We regard this decision as a major victory for consumers in the protection of free, over-the-air television signals and programming”, said a spokesman for the conglomerate of TV, sports and broadcasters who had just managed to shut down Jump TV and IcraveTV, both firms that made US television available to Canada over streaming broadband. As a result, Canadians will be unable to view these TV programs until the corporations choose to broadcast them in Canada.

The Movie Industry

Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said a ruling that prevented movies older than 70 years from becoming public domain was also a “victory for consumers everywhere" because "copyright, whose aim it is to provide incentive for the creation and preservation of creative works, is in the public interest."

Conclusion

Any kind of victory (no matter how at odds with the needs of the customer) can be seen as a victory for consumers as long as prices are kept cheap and the shelves are kept full. This is a specious expression, in that it is often seems almost plausible that denying one right might benefit a greater good; The phrase is nearly allways used in the context of a corporation trampling all over the rights of the consumer!

If these are examples of victories I would really hate to see what the defeats look like.

The Automotive Industry

A Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes called the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case against Firestone a "victory for consumers." - Firestone are a company that make vehicle tyres and a subsidiary company of The Ford Motor Company. They allegedly made sub-standard products that were prone to failure, and may have been the cause of many car accidents.

I believe her exact words were 'It confirms that safety decisions should be made by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(sic), not trial lawyers. No-injury cases should not be heard as class actions, especially in this case, because Ford and Firestone have already replaced millions of tires at their own expense.'¹

Remember, 'injury' is a pretty broad term, referring not only to physical injury, but also to loss of earnings, and even property damage.² She is probably quite right in calling this a victory to consumers, because if forced were to fight a lawsuit which basicly alleged 'Nothing bad happened to me, my car, my firestone tyres, my pets or my family, and Ford replaced my tyres free of charge, but I was endangered, and no-one wants to buy my Ford Explorer, so I demand they give me money', Ford would just pass on the costs of the legal action to consumers.

People who were actually injured by ford in some way still have the right to sue them for compensation.