Eliot Spitzer Investigating Digital Music Price Fixing
from the as-if-no-one-saw-that-coming dept
Fresh off getting the customary fines out of the recording industry for still doing payola, it looks like New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is turning his attention to whether or not the record labels are involved in illegal price fixing for downloadable music -- and has subpoenaed Warner Music. Is this really that surprising? As we've been noting for months and months, Warner's head, Edgar Bronfman Jr. has openly been advocating illegal price fixing for Apple's iTunes by trying to force Apple to raise the prices of songs. Warner (and all the other music labels) have the right to charge whatever they want to the retailer (in this case Apple), but they should have no say in what Apple charges the consumer. Any attempt to set the final prices can be seen as price fixing, and yet it's exactly what Bronfman has been publicly stating for many months.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cartel
-Manufacture of the product,
-Distribution of the product, and
-Sale of the product
If a cartel controls all three channels in an industry, who's to stop them from price fixing? As for the comments, they may be so accustomed to conducting business in such fashion that they just go unnoticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spitzer for president
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spitzer for president
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps this is why he was conspicuous by his abse
hear from the NY attorney general.
My best guess is that he's picking his spots. Going after the music
industry with established trade law (for the payola and now price fixing)
is probably simpler. These laws have established precedence-- e.g. it's
been done before.
OTOH, the laws governing computer usage isn't as well established.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps this is why he was conspicuous by his
Haven't seen anything recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spitzer kicks ass
A couple years ago I remarked to my republiconservative dad that I'm impressed that Spitzer has been going after all the baddies out there, and he said "he's just trying to get elected governor."
Said it like that's a bad thing - trying to earn the public's trust and respect by doing good work, rather than making deals with the megacorps to buy your way in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spitzer kicks ass
Well, isn't that what we all say about politicians that we disagree with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps this is why he was conspicuous by his
hear from the NY attorney general.
He wasn't conspicuously absent. He went after Sony BMG also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps this is why he was conspicuous by his
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrption Everywhere
A while goes by, and you learn of another formerly trusted and admired provider acting purely out of greed and disdain for its customer base.
You're shocked and awed to hear that the same attitude lives in the heart of a powerful leader who still wants the masses to see him as benificent, upright and personally likable.
Mr. Bronfman has provided my personal "Last Straw". Warner may now consider its brandname, subsidiaries and any business associates to be on my "Plague List".
I can no longer do my shopping with an eye out for just a couple of Corporate Villains to avoid. I think I'm going to have to adjust to shopping ONLY at places and for brands (or off-brands) that have proven their respect and good intentions toward their customers.
Is there a clearinghouse for Corporate Goodness somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corrption Everywhere
http://www.business-ethics.com/100best.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spitzer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spitzer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The landslide is getting bigger!
This whole thing is the kind of major event that shakes up an entire industry, or destroys it. I don't see this as destroying the recording industry but I do see this as forcing the industry to change, kicking and screaming if need be. Some of that is already happening now, but its only an isolated effect. Thing will get worse for the RIAA, more people will come forward, more artists being cheated out of their fair share of the money will enter the limelight of the courts and then all hell will break loose. When the smoke from all of this finally clears the Recording and possibly the Motion Picture Industry will be very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price fixing?
But it seems to me that in this case, Spitzer, too, does not have a case: you can't have price fixing if there is no competition. And in the case of record companies there is no competition at the consumers level, and there is no price fixing possible. Artists are natural monopolies, and assuming that the owners of exclusive rights of different artists practice competition based on price is just absurd: if I want the latest record by 50 Cents, I will not buy a collection of, say, John Denver's hits of the '70 instead, just because is cheaper.
As long as record companies keep on holding their artists in locked exclusive contracts, there will be no possibility of competition based on price, and the record company owning of the rights of the latest hit single is justified in raising the record's price to whatever sum it cares, and nobody can object.
Maybe it is really time for artists to take back the control of the distribution of their work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
The Apple bit was just an aside, expressing my understanding that Apple's pricing cannot be considered price fixing by the very definition of price fixing.
My point is that, similarly but for different reasons, even the pricing of the record companies cannot be considered price fixing.
We have price fixing when all (or a relevant portions of) the providers of some goods agree to set a price higher than necessary for their goods, preventing consumers (and resellers alike) to find the best deal, because they are all the same high price.
So we have price fixing when theoretically you could do comparative shopping and find competing goods at different prices, but practically you cannot, because everywhere these goods cost the same due to a behind-the-scene agreement of the producers. Price fixing, therefore, only occurs when price is a relevant factor in the buying decision.
But in this case, the record companies' natural monopoly on the artists' outcome implies that no competition can come to exist on the goods, because the different products can never be compared: one does not buy a record by Yanni only because it's cheaper than Shakira.
So, whatever the agreements the record companies reach over the pricing of their records, this cannot be considered price fixing, because the final buying decision is not done on pricing, but on the artist's name alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
It might be their practice, it might be their purpose, it might be immoral, it might even be illegal (I don't know), but still it is not price fixing, and should not be prosecuted as such.
Price fixing implies that there could be competition on prices that is actually prevented because of the behind-the-scenes agreement of the producers. This is not the case here.
Suppose that record company A, owner of the rights over the records of hit artists X and Y, unilaterally raises their price, so that Apple does not feel like selling these artists in its Music Store anymore. In this case Apple cannot find two competing artists Z and W to sell at a cheaper price, because music lovers will look for X and Y, and not just any artist that is cheap enough to buy. The adverse effect on Apple's sales happens regardless of whether all record companies agree on a common retaliatory pricing policy.
This is different than, say, peanut butter or chips, where the actual brand is only one of the factors for buying, and price has a large impact (and in many cases, the largest). Price fixing, as an illegal practice, has an impact only when price has an impact on the final decision on buying one specific brand over the competition.
This is not the case here. Any other practice of playing the prices of my products can be immoral, even illegal, but is not price fixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
It might be their practice, it might be their purpose, it might be immoral, it might even be illegal (I don't know), but still it is not price fixing, and should not be prosecuted as such.
You're suggesting that there's simply no price elasticity in CDs? I don't believe that's true. While you're correct that one single artist isn't a direct replacement for another, plenty of people do buy one CD over another based on price. They plan to buy a CD, and look at two different artists they're interested in, and then buy the cheaper one.
Either way, conspiring by a series of wholesalers to set the retail price is still considered price fixing. And by conspiring to set the retail price, it's price fixing in that it's decreasing the potential for overally competition in the market place between Apple and other digital music sellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
Well, I'll be very interested to see what arguments the lawyers of the record companies will use when debating this case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price fixing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mp3.com
You still have www.allofmp3.com. It's Russian, outside of the reach of RIAA, and legal in Russia (as proven times and times again).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA-free CDs
"Not all record labels are members of the RIAA. A proud handful hold out, refusing to join in the cartel's backwards way of doing business. Sites like riaaradar.com help you sort the wheat from the chaff. The kids at FreeCulture.org have compiled these holiday gift guides to start you off. Each guide is a list of 10 great RIAA-free CDs. There's something for every taste, and you can find many of them in your local record store or online." - Guide Lists at freeculture.org.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
price fixing
Good day to you all and God bless!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]