DOJ Drops Online Music Antitrust Investigation

JOstrow writes "On Tuesday, the Justice Department ended a two year long antitrust investigation into the online ventures of the music industry. The assistant attorney general for the antitrust division, R. Hewitt Pate, was quoted, 'Consumers now have available to them an increasing variety of authorized outlets from which they can purchase digital music and consumers are using those services in growing numbers.' What took off a lot of the heat was pressplay (now Napster!) and MusicNet changing their services to allow songs to be transferred from machine to machine."

Comments

Question

[Psychic Burrito]

Does anybody know if iTunes (or any of these other stores) now allow the official resale of songs to other parties? There was a story on slashdot a few months back about somebody trying this on eBay and getting stopped by the eBay TOS. Has this changed now?

Additionaly, am I right that as soon as Apple, Pressplay or any other venture goes bankrupt and I format my hd and reinstall the songs from a backup, I'm out of luck and can't play them ever again?

Thanks for any clarifications!

Anti-trust is slightly different from other crimes

[Kjella]

There are two aspects to it - one is becoming a monopoly itself (which isn't illegal by itself, as long as it happens in a legal way), and abusing said monopoly. The problem from a legal point of view is that it is very difficult to give a clear definition of when exactly it is abusing the power. Yes, it might seem "obvious" to you that this is an abuse of market power, but it's hardly specified anywhere in a law that "under market conditions X, with a market power Y, it is illegal to do Z".

After all, there's no doubt that Microsoft, RIAA has a lot of power, in whatever they do, simply because they're monopolies (no, that does not mean 100% market share. Look it up). The question is, where exactly is the border between use and abuse? It's a fundamental right, for companies as well as individuals to know what is illegal. Not "we'll decide that this is illegal" after the fact.

Since it's mostly a gray area decided on a case-by-case basis, they do not want it to be self-limiting out of fear. That's why most penalties are designed to be corrective rather than punitative, or in more normal terms, their goal is to end the reason for the anti-trust suit, nothing more. Think of it an anti-trust ruling almost like a specific instantiation of the law "It is illegal for a company with Microsoft's market power, under the current market conditions, to integrate IE the way they do." After that it is "law", and you can punish them bigtime if they don't comply with that.

The thing is, when conditions change, the "law" goes null and void. Which leads to cases like this, where they basicly say: "Well, the market conditions are no longer the same as at the time of the filing, so even if we went ahead the ruling would have no effect whatsoever."

If you want an analogy, a dog on a leash gets reined in when it goes too far (corrective), it doesn't get a beating because it went too far (punitative). If you did, it would probably stick very close to you, afraid of getting a beating (self-limiting).

The whole problem occurs when the legal system is lagging. The leash is an instant feedback "this is the limit". This investigation is like saying "Well, the dog tore the leash, but ran out of the city (where it's supposed to be on a leash) and into the woods, where it usually runs free anyway. So everything is ok, no need to leash it now." The result is the dog can keep running (drag it out in court) until the problem solves itself and nothing happens.

It sucks, and there really should be punitative penalities for what I mean are blatant and obvious abuses of power. We don't have to list all the possible ways to kill a man in the murder paragraph, then we shouldn't have to list all the ways to stifle competition in the anti-trust paragraph either.

Kjella