Rep. Lofgren: A Real Antitrust Issue That Needs Scrutiny Is Copyright

from the about-time... dept

We talk here quite frequently about the fact that copyright (and patents) are gov't granted monopolies, and should be watched carefully because of that. Historically, economically speaking, gov't granted monopolies are bad for innovation and the economy. However, over the last few decades, there's been a big push by those who benefit from monopoly rents to try to redefine them as "intellectual property" rather than the more accurate description as a gov't granted monopoly. For the most part, our elected officials have bought into that language shift. Could that finally be changing back to a recognition that copyrights are monopolies and deserve the same scrutiny as any other economic monopoly? Today we saw a small move in that direction with a Congressional Rep admitting that copyrights are a monopoly and deserve scrutiny from the Judicial Dept. for that very reason.

I'm at the always-excellent State of the Net West event today, and the second discussion is about Antitrust in the Internet Era, and the discussion was introduced and led by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who had a number of surprising (in a good way) remarks. On traditional antitrust issues, she's worried that antitrust actions aren't being used to stop anti-competitive behavior but for anti-competitive purposes. She notes that many in Congress don't really understand the purpose and reasoning behind antitrust and assume that dominance or marketshare automatically means there's an antitrust problem. And, of course, there is the problem of regulatory capture. So, she notes that you'll see elected officials basically read out talking points on antitrust issues from competitors -- rather than actually looking at whether or not there's real harm to the market. So, she suggests that the framework for antitrust issues should be looking at innovation and whether or not that's happening or is being hindered. Of course, the cynical out there (you know who you are) might suggest that these sound sorta like Google's talking points... Either way, she says she's trying to set up a seminar for the Judiciary Committee about antitrust, to get them better educated about the real issues related to antitrust, and that seems like a good thing.

However, much more interesting and unexpected were her brief comments at the end of her remarks, where she took on copyright, noting that it is a gov't granted monopoly that deserves antitrust scrutiny. She said, "Let's face it, copyright extension these days is 'limited' to the life of Mickey Mouse." And yes, there was sarcasm in her voice over the word "limited." The guy sitting next to me who works at Disney started shuffling uncomfortably.... Lofgren went on to say that copyright is being used to put up barriers to competition and innovation and is an issue that antitrust regulators really should be scrutinizing. This is really surprising, but really good to hear. Lofgren has been one of the (very) few elected officials who actually does "get" copyright issues, but this is the first time I've heard any elected official recognize that copyright is a monopoly/antitrust issue that deserves serious scrutiny for the way it's so frequently abused for anticompetitive purposes.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Video Games... Look At The Evil Influence Of The Board Game Monopoly

from the i-mean...-seriously... dept

While hardly a month goes by without yet another indignant opinion piece arguing about how video games are corrupting our youth, it seems that some are now exploring the moral panics around other sorts of children's entertainment. Jedipunk points us to a brilliant tongue-in-cheek parody of all those anti-video game "think of the children" stories... but applying the same logic to the board game Monopoly.

For all the modern angst about violent computer games, this innocent-looking board game has probably had a more corrosive influence on western morals. For starters, Monopoly brazenly encourages players to plunder their savings and put every last penny into property.... Most pernicious of all Monopoly's venal influences, however, is surely the Community Chest card that says, "Bank error in your favour, collect £200." There's no suggestion you should alert the bank to its mistake when you can buy a couple more houses and profit by some idjit's error.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Today's Ridiculous Lawsuit: Wal-Mart, Netflix Sued Over Conspiracy To Create A Monopoly

from the ugh dept

Way back in 2002, Wal-Mart decided to enter the online DVD rental business, launching an almost exact replica of Netflix. Of course, Wal-Mart quickly discovered what almost every other player in that marker discovered: just offering a competing service to Netflix isn't enough to get anyone to use it. Wal-Mart had a lot of difficulty signing up customers (and keeping them once they signed up). The whole project was going nowhere fast, and eventually, Wal-Mart decided that it was a waste of time to throw more money into a project that was pretty far removed from its main business, and decided to simply let Netflix take over its online DVD rental service. This was a reasonable business move.

However, nearly four years later, a lawsuit has been filed claiming that Netflix and Wal-Mart "conspired to create a monopoly" in the online video rental market, and as a result of that monopoly, Blockbuster raised its prices. Read that sentence again. Netflix and Wal-Mart are being accused of creating a monopoly -- and because of that monopoly another major player in the space raised its prices.

If there's another major player in the space, there is no monopoly.

Besides, the folks bringing the lawsuit are going to have to convince a judge that the relevant market is online DVD subscription services, rather than any kind of home movie viewing service (which includes store rentals, purchases, internet downloads, subscription services and more). This seems like a random bogus lawsuit targeted at a company with deep, deep pockets (Wal-Mart), rather than anything serious.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Making Results Better For End Users Isn't Acting Like A Monopolist

from the and-again-and-again-and-again dept

With the Justice Department getting closer and closer to going after Google for supposed antitrust violation, we're going to see more and more articles like the one in the New York Times this weekend that tries to highlight the story of a company "harmed" by Google's market power. In this case, it's the story of a guy who runs a directory site that was based entirely on Google arbitrage. He bought ads on Google's search engine to drive people to his directory page, and then littered the page with AdSense to collect revenue from people clicking through. The NY Times presents this as being somewhat harmful, but I have to side with Jeff Jarvis who doesn't see what Google did wrong.

Google arbitrage sites are a problem for the end user. They're based on the simple concept of forcing people to go an extra click to siphon some money away. If I'm looking for a particular site on Google I don't first want to go to a directory -- I want to go directly to the site. That's true for many, many users -- and Google's efforts in punishing arbitrage sites isn't anticompetitive, it's about improving the user experience, which is something that should be praised, not sued. The only problem noticed in the scenario was that the guy chose a bad business model, where he was totally reliant on a single company for both all of his traffic and all of his revenue. He made the decision to base his entire business on a single supplier, and that supplier has every right to change the terms of its deals in an effort to make a better consumer experience. This isn't Google being anticompetitive -- it's Google serving its customers.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..