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?"

Comments

Re:Inquiring minds want to know...

[palutke]

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

Re:Inquiring minds want to know...

[plemeljr]

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.

How about political realitites?

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know...

[frenchtouch]

Communications/Electronics:
Top 20 Senators
Rank 6 - Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $404,388

Source

No baseball exemption.

[JKConsult]

I posted this upthread, but I think it's important for everyone to realize that baseball does not have an exemption (nor should they, or any other business, especially the **AA's, those bastards.) It's a commonly held misconception that baseball alone has an antitrust exemption. In fact, this is not true. There is nothing in antitrust law, be it the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or the Taft-Hartley, that grants Major League Baseball an exemption from anti-trust laws and their penalties. The "exemption" is purely judicial.

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.

Re:No baseball exemption.

[Overzeetop]

Whether legilstive or judicial, it does have an exemption. Courts interpret law, and the courts have interpreted, and upheld, that anti-trust legislation does not apply to MLB. You admit yourself that the courts have ruled that congress must pass a law _including_ MLB in order for them to be bound by it.

The courts have made MLB exempt by requiring their explicit inclusion in legislation. Until congress makes it illegal for anti-trust behavior to occur in baseball, it is legal. There's no exemption written into the law, but it's not necessary - the exemption exists nonetheless.

To compare with another popular /. topic - Time-shifting of video is legal. It is not explicitly allow for under US law, but it is legal because the courts have viewed it as fair use. They've essentially changed the legislation to include timeshifting, and in order for it to become illegal, congress must act to include timeshifting as an infringing act.

We can only hope...

[trainsnpep]

We can only hope that US lawmakers took history: Back in Boston, in say the mid to late 1700s, there was a company called the British East Indea Company. They controlled a large part of trade with the colonies. They muscled out other competetors. They were therefore a monopoly. Monopoly, class. Add that to your vocab words.

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...)

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.