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

Oh great...

[bjb]

Imagine how this could permanently squeeze out anyone who isn't associated with the RIAA (indie labels, or just people making music on their own). Since the RIAA would be the only source, and given their power they could push everyone else around semi-legally, everyone would be forced to buy into their world. I guess this would ultimately mean that I couldn't webcast my own music, I wouldn't be able to sell my songs from my website without paying them, etc.

I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.

Re:Oh great...

[Slider451]

I just heard on NPR this morning that many indie labels are trying to get off the RIAA's list (Many indies want to be file shared to get the word out). Apparently the RIAA claims to represent thousands of labels, many of whom have never joined the organization.

The theory goes that for them to be effective they must appear to represent the majority of labels. The reality is that they represent the major labels and their affiliates. The quicker the truth comes out the less power they will have.

Re:Oh great...

[leerpm]

Sounds like they need to form a new non-profit organization to represent the indie labels. Kind of like the FSF does for free software.

I would be happy to contribute to such an organization, and I am sure they would get a lot of support from Slashdot.

I am ashamed

[jlechem]

to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative. I have never voted for him and after several news stories like this will never vote for him in the future. When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written? I suggest everyone write a letter to Senator Hatch and tell him what you think of this law. Utahans especially but it helps if anyone sends a letter in.

*Ok rant's over, flame on!

Great...more power to the RIAA

[canfirman]

"Any bill that further increases the RIAA's power over consumers is extremely disconcerting to us," president of the Webcaster Alliance, Ann Gabriel told us today.

Great. This is what we need. More power to those who hold the purse strings. Give more power to big business and less to consumers.

The thing that concerns me is that the RIAA is trying to circumvent a diplomatic process. I always thought that, while not completely effective, challenging an organizations actions (even in court) kept what organizations do in check - that the could not overstep their boundries. Now, the RIAA is trying to be immune from it's actions, while suing consumers for their actions.

This could start a dangerous precident - allowing corporations immunity from their own actions. Hope SCO isn't watching.

Public awareness is key here...

[reimero]

Hatch is trying to pull this off at the same time Congress is debating whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. The NCAA doesn't have an antitrust exemption, and neither does the NFL. To my knowledge, Major League Baseball is the only group of that sort to have an antitrust exemption, and even that's come up for debate during all those strikes.

A simple public awareness campaign should put an end to the madness. In the context of other "market realities," it simply doesn't make sense. In fact, Congress has taken an active interest in limiting those other "market realities." Seriously, what's the difference between one group controlling all access to recorded music and one group controlling all access to pro football?

Re:*sigh*

[Computer!]

No, it's because there are no actual feelings of guilt.

Why should I feel guilty for double-clicking on an icon, and then listening to a song? The idea that I have to pay someone to listen to music is a relatively new concept. I don't feel guilty in the least. The music industry, in addition to suing its customers is now trying to enact legislation that will exempt it from laws put in place to protect consumers.

It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.

The music industry is evil, pure and simple, and I don't feel bad when I "steal" (not even the correct term) from evil. Getting my money is not some sort of god-given right. It has to be earned, and the music industry is not earning it. Humanity got along fine for thousands of years without them, and will do so again.

"Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?"

If they expect to collect money from them, and not create another PR disaster, yes. I can garauntee they will this time.