Techdirt. Stories filed under "collusion"

First Amendment Concerns About Internet Radio Bill Not Just Overblown But Completely Backwards

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:57:26 PST

I've been tossing around a longish blog post about some of the controversy concerning the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA) over the past month or so, but haven't had a chance to put it all down in a blog post. I did, however, wish to pick up on a small thread that got a brief spark of attention from some people who don't seem to understand legal stuff in the slightest. It started with musician David Lowery (you may remember him from past nonsensical rampages) claiming that Section 5 of the bill muzzled free speech and thus violated the First Amendment. This isn't just wrong. It's completely backwards. But the language and history here is a bit complex, so let's dig in a bit.

First off, you have to understand that the amounts that satellite and internet radio pay for a "performance right" for broadcasting songs is not (generally) an individually negotiated rate, but rather is set by the Copyright Royalty Board, using a variety of questionable standards. As we've noted in the past, the CRB is notoriously bad at setting reasonable rates -- and part of that is because part of its very charter is to block disruptive innovation if it has an impact on "generally prevailing industry practices." Thus, it tends to set rates super high. This is exceptionally bad for innovation, competition and for artists in the long run, though I'll get to that in another post. One thing that it more or less ensures is that these industries will be dominated by a very small number of super large players, because no one else will be able to afford the rates -- and this effectively locks in the top guys. That's what's happened, as you have Sirius dominating satellite radio and Pandora dominating internet radio. But the rates are so crazy that it's difficult to impossible for these companies to ever be profitable.

We'll get back to that in a moment. But, now, go ahead and read the full text of the bill if you'd like. For this discussion, jump over to Section 5, entitled "Promotion of a Competitive Marketplace." The section is relatively short.

SEC. 5. PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.
(a) Limitation of Antitrust Exemptions-
(1) EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS- Section 112(e)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ‘, on a nonexclusive basis,’ after ‘common agents’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).’.
(2) DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING PERFORMANCES- Section 114(e) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).
‘(4) In order to obtain the benefits of paragraph (1), a common agent or collective representing copyright owners of sound recordings must make available at no charge through publicly accessible computer access through the Internet the most current available list of sound recording copyright owners represented by the organization and the most current list of sound recordings licensed by the organization.’.

The important thing to understand here is that there's currently an antitrust exemption for SoundExchange, the organization that collects money from internet and satellite radio offerings (and sometimes has difficulty finding artists to pay them). SoundExchange basically needs an antitrust exemption because it is, by definition, a monopoly. What the bill is doing is something simple which is actually beneficial for artists. It's saying that SoundExchange can't use that antitrust exemption to try to stop artists from having the option, if they want to go do direct deals with internet or satellite radio providers. The second part is similar, but not referencing an antitrust exemption. It's just saying that any group that is representing multiple artists can't seek to block other artists from choosing to do a direct deal.

Sirius XM, in particular, has been trying to negotiate direct deals that route around SoundExchange. Now, why would artists ever want to negotiate directly with a Sirius or Pandora when they've already got the Copyright Royalty Board forcing ridiculous high rates on those providers? It's not as if those sites will choose to pay more directly. However, what they can do is offer better service than SoundExchange. That is: they can pay faster, they can provide more data and details, better access to users, etc. And that's what both companies are attempting to do. Also, for artists who actually act as their own label, they can actually make more money because they're cutting out a lot of middlemen who take their cut (it's convoluted, but click that link to see the details).

So, short version: it's certainly not for everyone, but some artists might find it beneficial to go direct. If they choose not to, they can still have SoundExchange collect and distribute their money and that's fine as well.

Now, jump to March of this year... when Sirius sued SoundExchange and A2IM (the RIAA of indie labels) claiming antitrust violations. Sirius argues in its lawsuit that SoundExchange and A2IM conspired and colluded to effectively forbid artists from going direct. Because proving direct collusion is difficult, Sirius' lawsuit is filled with circumstantial evidence, which doesn't prove an antitrust violation, but infers that there might be fire behind the smoke. The goal, there, is to get to discovery to try to suss out some smoking guns of collusion. So, the lawsuit includes various bits of circumstantial evidence, including a number of artists and indie labels that Sirius reached out to who flat out told them that A2IM prevents direct licenses, or that they'd have to first ask A2IM for permission. As part of the circumstantial evidence, Sirius also points to this blog post from A2IM that argues against doing direct licenses.

That lawsuit is still crawling along, so it's unclear if it's going anywhere. Honestly, proving collusion is crazy difficult, and I doubt Sirius will succeed, but some of that circumstantial evidence is eye-opening.

And that leads us to Section 5 of IRFA. As you can read above, what it makes clear is that the existing antitrust exemption cannot be used to "prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing" and similarly that any group acting for some artists could violate antitrust laws by blocking the free will of other artists to negotiate their own deals. In other words, the bill makes it clear that if A2IM or SoundExchange really are colluding to impede artists from choosing to do direct deals, that could be seen as an antitrust violation. This, then, is about protecting artists and indie labels from large organizations like SoundExchange or A2IM, should they try to block those artists and labels from voluntarily doing direct deals.

So you would think that self-declared, if often confused, "defender of artists rights," David Lowery, would like that. But he doesn't for reasons that suggest a serious misreading of the bill or misunderstanding of this background. He points to the language, and then at the text of the Sirius lawsuit, apparently not understanding the nature of circumstantial evidence, and argues that "This is the type of explanatory speech — not conduct — that Sirius XM thinks is illegal and IRFA definitely would outlaw." The only problem with this statement is, well, everything. It's wrong. Nothing in the bill would outlaw that kind of speech. At all. Nor does Sirius' lawsuit claim that such explanatory speech is illegal. Instead, it is arguing that that blog post, along with a host of other circumstantial evidence, is enough to suggest there's a fire somewhere providing all that smoke. Under IRFA, such blog posts would still be perfectly legal, so long as A2IM didn't also use those blog posts to collude and directly hinder copyright holders from doing direct deals.

All that Section 5 of the bill is saying is that the A2IMs and SoundExchanges of the world can't try to hide behind antitrust exemptions to argue that such coercion to block artists from doing direct deals is free from antitrust scrutiny. And, outside of the exemption, they also cannot restrict artists from doing direct deals.

And yet, Lowery (and some of his followers) have taken up the banner claiming that this is a First Amendment violation and that it censors free speech. What he seems to be missing is that the only speech it blocks is speech that is used to collude or to block artists from voluntarily making a deal. Under Lowery's interpretation of the bill, collusion by large companies to force independent artists and labels to do business their way only is legal... because it's free speech to collude..

That's kinda nutty. His argument is, basically: legalize collusion!

A few weeks ago, Lowery gleefully confronted supporters of the bill with this argument at the Future of Music Coalition Conference, which led bill sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden, to hit back and claim that, as one of the strongest defenders of the First Amendment, he'd never support a bill that took away free speech rights. He promised Lowery that he'd review the specific language of the bill, and if there were any interpretations that impacted free speech rights, he'd fix them.

And he followed through with that, asking the Congressional Research Service to look into the matter, which it did. In a note published last week, they make it quite clear that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a First Amendment issue raised by the bill:

... it seems unlikely that, in practice, Section 5 would impinge upon First Amendment rights for a few reasons.

They then go on to detail those reasons -- which can be summed up as, Congress has the right under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, to create antitrust law that blocks collusion (as it applies to interstate commerce). Basically, since antitrust law is Constitutional, so is Section 5:

The antitrust laws are generally considered to comport with the First Amendment, because though the Sherman Act may restrain speech on occasion, the restraint is incidental to Congress's legitimate goal of maintaining a free market. In the case of Section 5, Congress would arguably be creating a similar prohibition, particularly since the bill specifically references the antitrust laws. As noted above, Section 5 would generally prohibit copyright owners acting jointly from taking any action to interfere with direct licensing negotiations. This provision appears to be intended to further the government's interest in preserving the rights of individual copyright owners to negotiate directly with potential licensees without interference from entities like member-based royalty collection organizations. It could be argued that this is similar to Congress's intent to preserve a free market by enacting the antitrust laws. Under Section 5 an individual copyright owner would have the option, as she always has, of negotiating royalty rates individually or collectively, but with an added protection from interference on the part of groups of copyright owners that might seek to prevent her from exercising her individual rights. If the provision is read to prohibit activity and speech similar to, and not broader than those prohibited by the Sherman Act, Section 5 likely would not violate the First Amendment for similar reasons that the antitrust laws do not violate the First Amendment. The restrictions on speech may be interpreted to be incidental to a valid exercise of Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

In other words, exactly what we were saying: unless you're arguing that collusion is legal because it's free speech, the argument that Section 5 violates free speech is quite unlikely.

Because the CRS is quite thorough, it also does work through some scenarios under which the bill might possibly have Free Speech implications. But the only thing it can come up with is that a court would have to somehow interpret Section 5 to restrict speech beyond what's in antitrust laws (i.e., beyond activity designed to restrain trade). Considering how vocal bill supporters have been about this clause not being intended to go beyond the law, it would be somewhat incredible for a court to have that interpretation.

Of course, to make things even more amusing, Lowery himself posted about this CRS destruction of his key argument... and declared victory. Why? Because the CRS report, in its typically even-handed manner, discusses Lowery's scenario, of a blog post potentially violating Section 5, and notes that "though this hypothetical presents a broad interpretation of the language of Section 5, it is not an implausible one." Lowery cuts off the text at that point and declares victory... conveniently leaving out the detailed explanation of why this isn't a First Amendment violation (as explained above).

The confusion, it appears, stems from yet another misreading by Lowery of the CRS report. He interprets the "not implausible" claim to refer to his overall argument that the bill restricts free speech rights. But that is not what it is saying. It is saying that he is right that if a blog post somehow interfered with someone else doing a direct licensing deal -- i.e., restricted interstate trade under existing laws -- then it could violate the Act... but as such would not likely violate the First Amendment. So, the conditions here are that the blog posts themselves would have to actually impede trade, which the CRS report itself notes would require a very broad interpretation of the bill, one that is quite unlikely.

In the end, this appears to be much ado about nothing. The original complaint was a misread, which the CRS report clearly corrects, and Lowery doubles down by then misunderstanding the report itself. Still, from this vantage point, it's been rather amusing to watch a somewhat confused David Lowery thinking that he's "protecting artists," while he's been arguing against a provision in the bill that is actually 100% designed to protect artists against collusion to block them from doing their own deals -- deals which (especially for truly independent artists) could be more lucrative. It would be almost comical, if it weren't that a bunch of artists who haven't understood all this have been parroting Lowery's claims, believing that they're arguing for their own self-interest, when the reality is that they're literally arguing that organizations like SoundExchange and A2IM should be able to collude and block their ability to negotiate favorable deals.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Styli Are Getting Better

Michael Ho — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:00:00 PDT

Microsoft's new tablet computer was announced with a bit of fanfare -- and curiously, a stylus. When Apple introduced its touchscreens (not counting the Newton), Steve Jobs dismissively tossed away the idea of using a stylus and said the finger is the best pointing device around. Well, stylus technology is getting better all the time, and here are just a few examples of some styluses/styli that might beat the finger.

The Collusion iPad pen isn't just a piece of plastic in the shape of a pen. This pen-like device uses an ultrasound system instead of the iPad's built-in touchscreen to provide better accuracy. Plus it comes with collaboration software and handwriting recognition, so you can share your drawings and notes with other users. (NB: This Kickstarter project hasn't ended yet.) [url]
The Cosmonaut is a big stylus that is designed to mimic a dry erase marker. This *was* a Kickstarter project, and now it's currently selling for about $25 (shipping not included). [url]
The PressurePen is an open hardware stylus for the iPad (and Android platform) that gives users a pressure-sensitive way to draw on a touchscreen. Okay, so how many Kickstarter stylus projects are there?!? LOTS. At least this one is open source.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Author Tells DOJ The Authors Guild Doesn't Speak For Him & Amazon Is The Only Company Encouraging Competition

Mike Masnick — Tue, 29 May 2012 11:52:00 PDT

Author Joe Konrath has written a fantastic letter to the Justice Department to counter letters sent by the Association of Authors' Representatives and the Authors Guild (and some others), complaining about the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against certain publishers and Apple to collude to keep ebook prices high. As Konrath notes, these groups don't appear to actually represent authors, but do seem to be representing the best interests of the legacy gatekeepers.

I’m writing to tell you that these organizations did not solicit the views of their members, that they in no way speak on behalf of all or even most of their members, and that (as I imagine is obvious) they are motivated not by what’s best for consumers, but by what they see as best for themselves.

I recognize that the heart of the DOJ’s suit is collusion, not high prices. But it’s clear that the legacy publishing industry’s strategy is to keep the prices of ebooks high so as not to cannibalize high-margin hardback sales. If the prices of legacy published books are kept artificially high it could be argued that my lower-priced self-published books are made more attractive by comparison, but I believe that a regime of higher-priced books is bad for the industry overall because it slows the growth of the global book market, which indeed hurts all sales. I also believe it’s obviously bad for consumers, especially lower-income consumers, who could buy more of the books they loved if those books weren’t priced so high.

The whole thing is a worthwhile read, and certainly raises questions about who gets to represent whom when such issues come up. For years, we've seen bogus claims that the RIAA represents "musicians" or that the MPAA represents "filmmakers," when nothing could be further from the truth. In this case, though, it's even more egregious, in that these organizations directly claim to represent authors. But, for the most part, they seem to be only be representing the interests of authors already successful under the old system -- and going against every other author (and potential author) out there. In other words, their focus is on protectionism for established players, not what's best for authors as a whole or the consumers they serve with their writing. That's unfortunate.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Breaking: U.S. Sues Apple, Publishers Over eBook Price-Fixing

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:20:35 PDT

Ever since the Justice Department announced that they were investigating Apple and several publishers over allegations that Apple's agency model for ebook pricing violates antitrust law, we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Last night, Reuters reported that a lawsuit was imminent, and now Bloomberg has the news that the government has filed a lawsuit against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster in New York district court.

Details are still scarce, but sources say Apple and Macmillan refused to participate in settlement talks while some of the other publishers are still hoping to avoid a drawn out legal battle, and may settle soon. Update: Bloomberg is now reporting that S&S, HarperCollins and Hachette have settled. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense Apple brings, because the evidence of collusion doesn't look good for them at all. Despite Authors Guild president Scott Turow's self-serving claim that this will somehow hurt culture, this is good news for readers: busting Apple's and the publishers' iron grip on ebook prices will likely reduce them across the board.

Here is this the government's complete filing (pdf and embedded below).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

SoundExchange & A2IM Sued For Antitrust Violations By Sirius

Mike Masnick — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:25:11 PDT

Well, well. Last fall, we discussed how Sirius XM was aiming to cut out SoundExchange and try to do deals directly with labels for performance rights. There's some history here. SoundExchange was set up and spun out of the RIAA specifically to collect performance royalties from Sirius XM and emerging internet streaming offerings. Radio doesn't pay performance rights to musicians (they just pay mechanicals to songwriters/publishers), and while the RIAA has wanted that to change for years, it used the "newness" of satellite and the internet to suddenly claim that this extra tax must be paid there, and then set up SoundExchange to collect it. The "rate" was a statutory rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which involved a huge fight, with SoundExchange basically demanding a significant cut of everyone's revenue. The CRB eventually agreed to a sliding rate starting at 6% and moving up to 8% over time -- much, much lower than what SoundExchange wanted (there was an even more intense fight over internet rates, but that is a separate issue).

Even with this "lower" rate, Sirius XM provides a huge chunk of SoundExchange's revenue -- around $200 million last year alone. Realizing that the deal that set up SoundExchange noted that it was "nonexclusive," Sirius sought to cut SoundExchange out of the loop and go direct to labels. Obviously, Sirius's goal is to pay less in royalties, and that led some to wonder why a label would want to do it, since the royalty rate would be lower. Except, it's a little more complex than that.

Sirius notes that in cutting out the middleman, you avoid SoundExchange's (hefty) administrative fee, as well as its notoriously opaque payment process which has left many labels scratching their heads. SoundExchange provides little information as to why artists get paid what they're paid, leaving open significant concerns that the money is not being accounted for properly. Similarly, SoundExchange has been notorious for having "difficulty" finding artists -- though I will say that they've definitely been improving a lot on that front, and really have made a huge effort to reach out to artists. Still, there certainly could be benefits for labels to go direct. Cutting out the middleman, having more relevant and accurate data, as well as more timely payments could certainly be worth it. In fact, Jeff Price at TuneCore explained how indie artists who were their own labels would almost certainly benefit by going direct.

However, the wider industry flipped out and closed ranks, with SoundExchange, the RIAA and A2IM (like the RIAA but for indie labels) all urging labels not to have anything to do with direct deals. Sirius XM looked at all of this and saw a clear antitrust violation as it certainly feels like the entire industry colluding against it. To that end, it has sued SoundExchange and A2IM for antitrust violations -- and even gone so far as to ask for SoundExchange to be "dissolved and unwound." While the actions of other music industry trade groups -- including the RIAA, NARAS, AFRTA and AFM -- are mentioned in the lawsuit, they are not listed as defendants (yet). The focus is very much on SoundExchange and A2IM, whose boss, Rich Bengloff, sits on the board of SoundExchange (along with a bunch of RIAA folks).

In the filing (embedded below), Sirius reports on multiple attempts it made to sign deals with indie labels, in which it was repeatedly rebuffed with claims about how Rich or A2IM had urged them not to do direct deals.

For example, Sirius XM's direct license outreach to independent label Bandit Records was short-circuited when a representative of Bandit Records told Sirius XM that "[w]e're members of A21M and Merlin. I think that prevents a direct license." Upon information and belief, one or both Defendants communicated with Bandit Records (or through its representative Merlin Network) and pressured them to refuse a direct license.

O. Sirius XM's effort to engage in direct license discussions with independent label Unitedlnterests was similarly derailed when, on August 30, 2011, a representative of Unitedlnterests wrote: "I heard that XM was making these requests. I will look at the license, but will also confer with A2IM and other indies." Upon information and belief, UnitedInterests pursued those discussions and therefore agreed with A2IM and/or other record companies not to enter into a direct license.

Sirius XM's approach to independent label CA Management was stopped in its tracks when, on October 27, 2011, a representative of CA Management told Sirius XM that he was "getting mixed reviews about the best way to handle" the direct license offer. Several weeks later, on November 15, 2011, he told Sirius XM that "the RIAA has asked everyone to hold off." CA Management never entered into a direct license with Sirius XM because, upon information and belief, after CA Management communicated with RIAA, it agreed to participate in the industry boycott.

There are more, similar, examples in the filing. There's also a discussion of some indie labels who did sign on, but then backed out, claiming pressure from A2IM. From the filing:

Defendants' unlawful efforts have also extended to extracting agreements from labels that have already signed direct licenses to attempt to back out of them. By way of example. on November 28. 2011. Sirius XM entered into a direct license with Paracadute, TMB Productions, Michael Doughtv. and Michael Viola. On February 9, 2012, Paracadute and TMB Productions requested that they be released from the deal. Surprised by this request, Sirius XM's agent asked Darren Paltrowitz, the person with whom they had negotiated the deal, for an explanation. Mr. Paltrowitz's, response was an e-mail with talking points strikingly similar to the Defendants' press release, which Mr. Paltrowitz indicated were supplied by the bands' business manager. That business manager is Perry Resnick, an artist manager with RZO LLC, and a longtime member of the SoundExchange Board. After further discussions, on February 22, 2012, Mr. Paltrowitz wrote that he "relayed [Sirius XM's] feedback to RZO, and they -- per conversations with A2IM and other folks beyond SoundExehange -- stand their ground about wanting us to opt out" of the direct license. That same day. Mr. Paltrowity cut and pasted an email he received from Mr. Resinick that stated: "I know for a fact that Rich Bengloff, the head of A2IM ... is against this. Rich and I have had this exact conversation, and are both in agreement that SoundExchange is the better way to go."

Of course, there are a few reasons why SoundExchange and its board members would be so against this. As noted earlier, they still think that the royalty rates should be much higher, and have indicated multiple times that in the next round of ratesetting at the CRB, they are going to push for royalty rates double to triple of what Sirius XM is already paying. That's certainly part of why Sirius would like to cut them out of the picture. But, as some have noted, doing direct deals outside of SoundExchange doesn't just let Sirius avoid whatever crazy rates the judges at the CRB choose out of thin air, but it allows them to argue that the actual market rate is lower. You see... the way the CRB works is that it's supposed to try to set a statutory rate that is effectively what the market would choose on its own. Historically, since there were no market-based deals, it had nothing concrete to base its decision on, other than what SoundExchange or Sirius told the judges. However, if Sirius is able to cut direct deals (and do them at an even lower rate) then when the CRB hearing comes around, Sirius now has empirical evidence of a lower market rate. That's a pretty big deal.

Honestly, I'm not sure either side in this fight comes out looking good. It's really just a fight about who pays how much, and who gets a cut. This is the kind of messy thing that happens when a clueless Congress decides that a clueless judicial board should magically "set rates" based on nothing in particular. Sirius XM is hardly an angel in this fight, but based on some of the quotes in the filing, there may be something of a case here -- though proving full on antitrust violations are not easy.

The real issue, it seems, is that groups like A2IM are supposed to represent the industry, but are not supposed to be a central point of collusion for the industry, driving policy decisions back to the labels. That's coordinated effort among competitors that could very well cross the line. The close-knit nature of the SoundExchange board makes all of this even more complicated (and again raises serious questions why Congress ever allowed SoundExchange to be birthed from the RIAA, rather than being truly independent in the first place). I can't image a court would actually dissolve SoundExchange, but if it turns out that this lawsuit has legs, things could get very, very messy in the industry (and it certainly could shake up A2IM in a big way as well). This is one worth paying attention to.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Hollywood's Six Strike Plan Should Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:49:50 PDT

With there being renewed interest in the questionable deal between the RIAA/MPAA and the US's largest ISPs to set up a "six strikes" graduated response plan to cause trouble for those accused (not convicted) of file sharing, some are beginning to realize that the whole plan deserves serious antitrust scrutiny. After all, you have the representatives of two major industries getting together in a room to collude on a plan that will make internet access more expensive for users.

On top of that, since it's based on mere accusations (not convictions) -- and those accusations will come from a company with a terrible track record for accuracy -- you'll have to pay to challenge a strike and (most ridiculous of all) if you do challenge it, you are limited to just six defenses -- significantly less than are allowed under copyright law. That is, if the work is in the public domain, but published after 1923, you have no official defense under the plan. In other words, not only does the plan involve collusion among multiple big industries, but at the outset it assumes guilt before innocence, makes you pay to claim you're innocent, and won't even let you use basic defenses afforded to you under existing copyright law.

All of that seems of questionable legality. It also makes the White House's direct involvement in brokering this plan look even worse. And, once again, it makes us wonder why the real stakeholders, internet users, weren't given a seat at the table. If they were, perhaps this would have been avoided.

Of course, given the White House's involvement in brokering the deal, there doesn't seem much likelihood that the Attorney General will bother to scrutinize the agreement, since it would effectively be challenging his own boss.

That said, the article linked above suggesting that an antitrust inquiry seems necessary is written by Sean Flaim, and is based on his even more thorough research paper detailing why this program needs to be reviewed for antitrust violations. Unfortunately, the chances of that actually happening are still pretty slim.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Wikileaks Can Receive Visa & Mastercard Donations Again... But Visa Doesn't Understand Why

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:06:00 PDT

Last week, Wikileaks and Datacell threatened to sue Mastercard, Visa and Paypal if it didn't stop blocking payments to Wikileaks. The claims were basically collusion charges, in that all of the major payment companies were blocking payments. Things got strange today, however, when suddenly Datacell announced that payments worked again, and clearly implied that the companies had lifted the blockade. Except, Visa is insisting that it has not lifted its ban on Wikileaks and has no idea how payments are getting through. The details seem a bit sketchy. Some careful wording by Datacell's CEO suggest that he really just found an alternative payment gateway provider, which likely means this is a very temporary loophole, before the payment companies block again.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

WikiLeaks Planning Legal Action Against PayPal, MasterCard & Visa

Mike Masnick — Tue, 5 Jul 2011 09:26:06 PDT

There hasn't been much talk lately over the fact that PayPal, MasterCard and Visa all cut off Wikileaks late last year, after the US government freaked out about the release of some State Department Cables. None of the firms has done a very good job explaining why this makes sense (or why they continue to allow other groups, such as the KKK to receive funding, while singling out Wikileaks). I'm sure those three firms, which took quite a public bashing when the news originally dropped, would prefer that there not be any more talk about it. However, Wikileaks and the payment firm they used, DataCell, are apparently planning to file a legal complaint this week against all three firms in Europe. A draft of the complaint, which was obtained by Andy Greenberg at Forbes (linked above and embedded below), claims that the three firms violated Articles 101 and 102 of the EU Treaty, effectively a form of antitrust law. While I tend to think many antitrust claims are merely attacks on successful companies, this seems like a case where they could make sense. Here you have basically the only three ways for most people to transfer money easily, all agreeing to block a single (small) client from receiving money, despite no legal ruling against the operation (hell, charges haven't even been filed). It certainly would make for an interesting case.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Supreme Court Lets Price Fixing Claims Against Major Labels Over Digital Music Move Forward

Mike Masnick — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:11:52 PST

For many years, we wondered why the major record labels weren't brought up on price fixing charges concerning their various digital music deals. It involved all of the major labels working out deals where the price of music was exactly the same across the board and where it was the labels themselves who got to determine the end-user price rather than the retailer, which seemed like clear cases of price fixing. It used to be that manufacturers were not allowed to require a retailer to price in a certain way, as that would be prima facie evidence of price fixing but more recently rulings have dialed back that rule. Still, it seemed like some of the other aspects of digital music pricing still represented clear price fixing. It took long enough but finally some people sued. While a lower court had tossed out the lawsuit, last year we noted that the 2nd Circuit appeals court had reinstated it. The labels appealed to the Supreme Court, who has now allowed the case to move forward by rejecting an appeal from the labels. At this point, I wonder if the labels won't try to settle the lawsuit in an attempt to avoid a full trial. The chances that the labels might lose seems decently high and the costs to them could be quite high.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Are Silicon Valley Angel Investors Colluding Over Deals?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:17:59 PDT

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations
Mike Arrington, over at TechCrunch, has a troubling story about an apparent meeting between some of the top angel investors in Silicon Valley, allegedly to collude on deals. Arrington was alerted to the meeting -- bizarrely held at a restaurant where anyone could see them -- and while he knows these guys well, they were clearly unhappy to see him and wouldn't talk to him at all. After he spoke to some investors later, he got the scoop on what was happening:

This group of investors, which together account for nearly 100% of early stage startup deals in Silicon Valley, have been meeting regularly to compare notes. Early on it was mostly to complain about a variety of things. But the conversation has evolved to the point where these super angels are actually colluding (and I don't use that word lightly) to solve a number of problems, say multiple sources who are part of the group and were at the dinner. According to these souces, the ongoing agenda includes:

Complaints about Y Combinator's growing power, and how to counteract competitiveness in Y Combinator deals

Complaints about rising deal valuations and they can act as a group to reduce those valuations

How the group can act together to keep traditional venture capitalists out of deals entirely

How the group can act together to keep out new angel investors invading the market and driving up valuations.

More mundane things, like agreeing as a group not to accept convertible notes in deals (an entrepreneur-friendly type of deal).

One source has also said that there is a wiki of some sort that the group has that explicitly talks about how the group should act as one to keep deal valuations down.

As Arrington notes, this seems like a classic case of collusion and price-fixing. He doesn't name names, but if you're talking about the 15 angels who represent most of the early stage startup deals, it's not difficult to put together that list if you spend any time in startup circles. Arrington notes that some of the participants he spoke to said they were uncomfortable with the meetings, and there to "gather information, not participate," but it's still troubling. One bit of disclosure here, while I don't know who was at the meeting, if Arrington is being accurate in saying that they represent nearly all of the early stage deals, there's a very good chance that at least one of Techdirt's investors would have been involved.

While there are plenty more angels in Silicon Valley than just 15, it is true that, these days, companies getting investments from some of the "top" angels is seen as the ticket needed to move up the chain to big name venture capitalists as well. So hearing that a group of these investors may be colluding to effectively fix pricing is bad news for the supposed "meritocracy" of funding in Silicon Valley, and should be seen as a pretty serious problem.

Along those lines, I should say kudos to Arrington for publishing such a story. While he doesn't name names, these investors are the key sources for many of his stories, so publishing this story is probably burning some bridges with sources. It's good to see that he wouldn't let that get in the way (not that I thought he would -- Mike's always been great in that a good story trumps all other concerns, which is highly admirable).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Fine, Let Newspapers Collude

Mike Masnick — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:46:54 PDT

We've heard from more than a few journalists over the last few months, thinking that the best way to save the newspaper business is for newspapers to get a special antitrust exemption from Congress that would allow them to collude and all agree to put up paywalls. The latest to join the chorus is Tim Rutten at the LA Times, and it's basically more of the same. For people who are supposed to be great journalists, you'd think they could think more than one move out, and realize what the inevitable response would be to newspapers all ganging up and putting up a paywall. The problem that Rutten, and the others before him, have made is assuming (incorrectly) that if they put up paywalls, people will suddenly, magically, want to pay. This sort of conceit is seen in a poll put together by a Canadian TV producer by the name of Wodek Szemberg. Over the weekend he set up a poll asking people how much they would pay per month for the news they read... and the price starts at $10. As Mathew Ingram pointed out, Szemberg's post is missing zero as an option (I'd argue it's also missing a lot of other numbers -- starting at $10 is incredibly presumptuous). Szemberg responded to this criticism by saying that zero isn't an option because zero will not exist for access to sites. Trust me, for many people, zero will absolutely exist as an option.

It's difficult to think of anything to say to people who think these ways, other than "good luck." The real world doesn't believe in such limitations. If the newspapers collude and come up with a pricing scheme where the lowest option starts at $10 per month -- fine. Just go do it, and then let's see what happens. Because talking about it is getting pretty silly.

But here's my guess as to what happens:

Smart news publications break off from the "charge 'em" pack and remain free and/or experiment with more creative business models.
Traffic to the paywall sites drops to ridiculously low levels.
Those sites realize that the revenue from subscriptions is a blip and barely noticeable.
In removing much of the audience, those sites also lose pretty much all leverage with advertisers, and discover that their online ad revenue drops quite a lot as well.
Meanwhile, remember those smart publications that didn't join in the suicide party? They're soaking up plenty of traffic, and working hard to provide more value to readers.
On top of that, newer startups spring up to fill in the void left by the paywall crew.
Smart journalists start jumping ship from the legacy papers behind the paywall to those who actually get them some public recognition (which are a lot more fun anyway).
Without competition from, or the legacy business structures of, the paywall newspapers, the smarter publications start bringing in both audience and revenue (not all of it advertising).
The paywall crew goes back to complaining to the gov't, though people start to wonder why they're still around, when there's so much useful journalism going out without paywalls.

So, go ahead. Just get it over with, so we can stop writing this post over and over again, and you guys can clear the field for the real innovators.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is It An Antitrust Violation To Agree Not To Poach Employees From Competitors?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:14:16 PDT

The news broke this week that a bunch of big name Silicon Valley companies are under investigation by the Justice Department for their hiring practices and potential antitrust concerns. The specific issue appears to be that the companies may have agreed to not try to poach top execs from certain companies. Apparently there was nothing stopping the employee from getting a job at one of these companies, if they took the initiative -- but the companies wouldn't initiate the attempt. In most cases, the idea was not to poach from partners -- which might just be good business sense (pissing off partners generally isn't a good idea). Where it gets tricky is the accusation that some companies had written agreements not to poach, which could lead to some charges of collusion. Oddly, the NY Times article's title claims that the issue is "unwritten rules" when the details of the article suggest it's not the unwritten, but the written rules that are the problem. There have been studies that suggest that root of Silicon Valley's success was the easy movement of people from job to job -- so if it's true that companies are holding back trying to get the best employees to move around, they may actually be doing a lot more harm to themselves anyway. And, on the whole, it does seem like there's an awful lot of movement between big name companies. Just this week at the Conversational Marketing Summit, one of the speakers had a musical chairs presentation that went on for a long time showing a bunch of execs and how they played musical chairs between Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, AOL, News Corp. and Facebook.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Newspapers Gather In Secret (With An Antitrust Lawyer) To Collude Over Paywalls

Mike Masnick — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:22:00 PDT

You may have noticed a bunch of stories recently about how newspapers should get an antitrust exemption to allow them to collude -- working together to all put in place a paywall at the same time. That hasn't gone anywhere, so apparently the newspapers decided to just go ahead and try to get together quietly themselves without letting anyone know. But, of course, you don't get a bunch of newspaper execs together without someone either noticing or leaking the news... so it got out. And then the newspapers admitted it with a carefully worded statement about how they got together "to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public." And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved.

In the end, though, it won't matter. If a bunch of newspapers decide to lock up their content, they will only be digging their own graves. Smart newspaper execs will stay away and get all of the traffic. The wire services that compete with the Associated Press (such as Reuters, and CNN's new wire service) would be well served to put out a press release now hyping up the fact that their content is free. Other, smaller providers of news should trumpet how much they want people to come to them for news instead of paying, and then watch in amusement as the newspapers (whether it's an antitrust violation or not) discover both their advertising and their subscription money disappear.

Whether it's antitrust or not, it sure looks like collective suicide.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

RealNetworks Ups The Ante; Wants To Add Antitrust Charges Against The MPAA

Mike Masnick — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:04:03 PDT

With the lawsuit between the movie studios and RealNetworks off to an inauspicious start, it looks like RealNetworks decided to pull out the nuclear option: it's trying to add anti-trust charges against the movie studios to the case. The company claims it's come across evidence that the studios colluded to boycott RealNetworks and its attempt to let people back up their legally obtained movies. It would be interesting to know the details behind the evidence, as it could make the case a lot more exciting pretty quickly.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Officials Accused Of Colluding With Phorm

Mike Masnick — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:21:01 PDT

While the US quickly condemned clickstream tracking as a likely violation of privacy, many were quite surprised when UK officials went in the other direction, suggesting that Phorm's tracking was legal. The European Commission was so annoyed by this that it's taking legal action against the UK for privacy violations. But, still, many people are wondering why the UK government said something like Phorm was legal... and now accusations are coming out that it's because UK government officials let Phorm take part in writing the policy. There are a bunch of incriminating emails between the Home Office and Phorm, including one where officials ask Phorm execs if they would be "comforted" by the position the gov't was about to take. In another, the officials ask Phorm to review the document and give feedback, prior to the gov't releasing the actual policy. Talk about regulatory capture... The government, for its part, claims that people are misreading the emails, but it's difficult to see how the emails can be misread when they blatantly ask Phorm to review the document, and inquire whether the company and its partners will be comforted by the ruling.

Update: On top of this, it appears that Phorm is now lashing out at critics, claiming that they're "smear merchants" and "privacy pirates." That sounds convincing...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

When Colluding With A Competitor, Perhaps Don't Send A Direct Email Suggesting You Keep Prices High

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:13:58 PDT

It's rather rare these days to see collusion lawsuits where there's overt evidence of collusion. Instead, it's usually implicit collusion where a case needs to be made that this is a problem. However, every once in a while you still get those good old fashioned situations where there's evidence of direct price fixing. For example, the Inquirer points us to a case involving questions of collusion in the graphics card market between ATI and NVIDIA, where it appears NVIDIA's VP of marketing sent an email to ATI's president and chief operating officer suggesting that, while the two companies were competitors, they should work more closely to make sure their stock prices each remained high. Apparently, the lawyers in the case tried to hide that document as a "trade secret." If you consider it to be a "trade secret" that the two companies may have been collaborating, then perhaps they have a point. But the judge didn't buy it: "This court is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of your companies. I am against you hiding information from the public."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Major Labels Under Antitrust Investigation

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:58:00 PST

Apparently the Justice Department is suddenly worried that the four major record labels are colluding in creating a new online music subscription service. The last time this happened was back when the record labels tried to (wait, this sounds familiar) create online music subscription services -- which were universally panned, rarely used and eventually shut down. So, even if the labels are colluding, given their strategic vision, it seems rather unlikely that they're going to leverage their position to dominate the market. They certainly could hold back other services -- but it seems like they've been doing that for years already, just with their own shortsightedness.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Dismisses LimeWire's Charges Of Antitrust Violations Against RIAA

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:37:47 PST

After being sued by the RIAA, file sharing app provider LimeWire fought back. Beyond claiming that it didn't violate copyright laws (by not "inducing" infringement), the company also countersued, claiming that the RIAA had violated antitrust laws in trying to illegally compete with LimeWire and other file sharing systems. This claim always seemed like a stretch, and apparently a judge agreed, dismissing the antitrust claims, noting that LimeWire failed to provide enough evidence to back up the claim. While it would have been nice to see the RIAA run into trouble on this point, it's true that LimeWire's evidence wasn't particularly strong, so this shouldn't come as a surprise or even be seen as much of a setback. It's just a case where LimeWire reached too far in its lawsuit and a judge quickly saw that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story