Slashdot Mirror
MPAA, RIAA Seek Permanent Antitrust Exemption
Devistater writes "Webcasters sued RIAA two months ago in an antitrust case for anti-competitive behavior. The response? An exemption from antitrust laws. Today's Register tells about RIAA/MPAA's efforts to get just such an exemption written into law. They could become permanently exempt from such a suit, if the bill passes. They snuck it into a bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch called EnFORCE Act (Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003). Orrin Hatch says this bill contains "First... an antitrust exemption in the Copyright Act [for] record companies and music publishers" Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"
According to Open Secrets, a lot.
1997-1998 PAC Contributions
1999-2000 PAC Contributions
2003-2004 PAC Contributions
Important to note:
1. there's no data available for 2001-2002 Cycle
2. The 2003-2004 is a running total
'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
Well, according to Open Secrets, Hatch has raised $152,360 for his 2004 campaign from TV/Movies/Music industries. In the 2000 election, he raised $515,207 from the Communications/Electronics sectors.
Viacom and GE have given him over $14,000 each.
Please email all complaints to root@127.0.0.1 and the issue will be dealt with in due time.
Thanks for voting. Democrat? Republican? All the same. The Constitution limits our Congress to certain enumerated rights. Copyright and anti-trust regulation ARE within those enumerated rights, but we've given them so many other rights (health care, FBI, FDA, FCC, etc) that they can now pass any law, any time, even if the laws are obviously pork for their friends.
This is the problem with democracy. If 49 people disagree with 51, the 49 people lose. Everyone's a loser. Stop voting for authoritarian parties (Democrats, Republicans, Greens) and start voting for parties who actually want to downsize DC.
Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.
Now is the time, GOP congress and President? An especially "pro-business" well pro-big-business with deep-pockets administration in an anything goes legislative spree is the *perfect* time to peel away some fair use rights. It would be foolish if they didn't try, not that I condone this.
Look at the success of Patriot Act II, just attach it to a spending bill and it passes while we were all sleeping. No debate, no nothing. The RIAA knows this is a good thing, for them.
Whatever your political persuasion, its fairly obvious that legislative reform should have happened a long time ago and the current congress and executive branch are pulling every dirty trick they can.
Greg Palast chronicles a lot of the abuses we don't hear about in his book The Best Democracy Money can Buy. Worth checking out if you want to know how stuff like this happens and why non-monied interests have little say in the affairs of government.
Communications/Electronics:
Top 20 Senators
Rank 6 - Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $404,388
Source
Er... Isn't he a senator?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Well just so that people can know,
The two cosponsors of this bill are
Sen. John Cornyn from Texas
Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
Nice TMBG ref - I don't know if anyone caught that or not (or if they care, for that matter).
>> Buy yourself some extremely long bed sheets. You'll be making an escape rope out of them very soon.
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
Sunday I'm having lunch with my Senators and the Senators from Rhode Island. I'll make sure that if they aren't aware of what Hatch is up to they will be and I'll make sure they know why this is a bad idea. Yeah I doubt this has a chance of passing but hey, the way this Administration and Congress are going soon I'll be calling Dubya Big Brother.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
A Monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: 'Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals' (Milton Friedman). "
The British East India Company used their power to inflate prices on imported tea. Then, the British Government (which owned the British East India Company) taxed that tea. Hrmm...Does anyone in the class know what the Boston Tea Party was?
Other Monopolies...Everyone knows Rockefeller Plaza, correct? And Carnegie Melon University? And J. P. Morgan? John D. Rockefeller was a monopoly owner in the late 1870s. He controlled the whole of oil refinery. He didn't care who drilled for it, or who sold it, he just refined it. 96% of it. He cut prices so low that other businesses couldn't compete. Andrew (I believe) Carnegie controlled steel production. He controlled every part from the mining of its components to the shipping. He used a new process (I believe Bessemer...it's been a few years) which made steel cheaper, stronger, and easily manufacturered. J. P. Morgan? The money guy: He controlled most of the banks in America. He actually was so rich and so powerful he brought the whole nation out of depression. He brought all of the bankers under his control, said "OK, how much can you give to the government?", "And you?", "And what about you?". He brought the whole damn nation out of a small but potentially disastrous depression.
Roosevelt passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act. From this act, "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "
Source: USDOJ
There are other anti-trust laws (Clayton Act, also on the above page). The purpose of them is so that no one corporation or organization can come to control a large part of any market. It is a protection to the consumers. We have been without protection from the RIAA for years. We've been forced to pay their steep prices for a long time, until the idea of Napster came around.
US Lawmakers must remember the past. They must ignore the few million they got from the RIAA in their campaigns. The must not pass any sort of legislation such as what the RIAA is aiming for. The RIAA is a monopoly. To exempt them would only give a hundred new arms to the octopus that it already is. Write your local congress-critter and express your views.
(Footnote: Please excuse any historical errors. I am a history buff, but it's been three years since I studied American History. I can ensure you it's mostly accurate...)
--<Mike>--
"Laws are meant to protect CITIZENS not CORPORATIONS"
Ah! but you have to understand that, according to the law (for example: Louisville R. R. v. Letson -- 1844), a corporation IS a citizen! The railroads lobbied for and got this judgement passed back in the 1800s and corporations have run completely amok since then.
I am writing to protest a portion of the bill Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003 mentioned here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html.
I do not believe the RIAA requires protection from antitrust suits. I request that you introduce an ammendment to remove that provision in the bill or to ammend it to allow independent government oversight.
I understand the need of the entertainment industry to protect its copyrights. They created or own the rights to the works, so if the works are being used, for a period of time they deserve to profit from them. However, it is dangerous to allow any organization or industry freedom from antitrust lawsuits unless the government is planning to regulate that industry itself. The lawsuits are checks preventing organizations from trampling the rights of others. If organizations form a trust they have a tendency to start acting if not illegally, then unfairly. If the RIAA has done nothing wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and I'd assume the losing side would have to pay for the legal costs. Realistically, no one is going to sue the RIAA unless they are sure they have a good case because the RIAA has more money and lawyers than the average person.
Another reason the RIAA does not deserve antitrust protection is that it does not provide a vital service. I can understand extending it, with caution, to vital industries such as power companies in times of crisis, but the function the RIAA performs is not vital to the national interest. Of course copyrighted material must be protected, but let the RIAA be open to court challenges. I'd be hesitant to extend such important protection to an industry that recently had to refund money to consumers because of price fixing.
Again, I urge you to amend this bill. Thank you for your time.
Money doesn't buy influence. Votes are influence. A politician ultimately answers to the populice. You cannot win a war when the enemy controls where the battle is to take place, the rules of engagement, and the weapons you are allowed to use.
Put simply, we need to organize this murmoring into a chorus. Not a riot. Not a protest. A chorus. We do not need to tear apart our cities to get our point across. The cities are already ours. We do not need to yell at one another. We are in accord. What we do need to do is put aside our differences, and focus on what we have in common.
Liberal and conservative are not black and white. They are melody and harmony. One singing louder than the other makes noise, not music. One competeing against another is cacaphony, not art.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming