Rep. Lofgren: A Real Antitrust Issue That Needs Scrutiny Is Copyright
from the about-time... dept
We talk here quite frequently about the fact that copyright (and patents) are gov't granted monopolies, and should be watched carefully because of that. Historically, economically speaking, gov't granted monopolies are bad for innovation and the economy. However, over the last few decades, there's been a big push by those who benefit from monopoly rents to try to redefine them as "intellectual property" rather than the more accurate description as a gov't granted monopoly. For the most part, our elected officials have bought into that language shift. Could that finally be changing back to a recognition that copyrights are monopolies and deserve the same scrutiny as any other economic monopoly? Today we saw a small move in that direction with a Congressional Rep admitting that copyrights are a monopoly and deserve scrutiny from the Judicial Dept. for that very reason.I'm at the always-excellent State of the Net West event today, and the second discussion is about Antitrust in the Internet Era, and the discussion was introduced and led by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who had a number of surprising (in a good way) remarks. On traditional antitrust issues, she's worried that antitrust actions aren't being used to stop anti-competitive behavior but for anti-competitive purposes. She notes that many in Congress don't really understand the purpose and reasoning behind antitrust and assume that dominance or marketshare automatically means there's an antitrust problem. And, of course, there is the problem of regulatory capture. So, she notes that you'll see elected officials basically read out talking points on antitrust issues from competitors -- rather than actually looking at whether or not there's real harm to the market. So, she suggests that the framework for antitrust issues should be looking at innovation and whether or not that's happening or is being hindered. Of course, the cynical out there (you know who you are) might suggest that these sound sorta like Google's talking points... Either way, she says she's trying to set up a seminar for the Judiciary Committee about antitrust, to get them better educated about the real issues related to antitrust, and that seems like a good thing.
However, much more interesting and unexpected were her brief comments at the end of her remarks, where she took on copyright, noting that it is a gov't granted monopoly that deserves antitrust scrutiny. She said, "Let's face it, copyright extension these days is 'limited' to the life of Mickey Mouse." And yes, there was sarcasm in her voice over the word "limited." The guy sitting next to me who works at Disney started shuffling uncomfortably.... Lofgren went on to say that copyright is being used to put up barriers to competition and innovation and is an issue that antitrust regulators really should be scrutinizing. This is really surprising, but really good to hear. Lofgren has been one of the (very) few elected officials who actually does "get" copyright issues, but this is the first time I've heard any elected official recognize that copyright is a monopoly/antitrust issue that deserves serious scrutiny for the way it's so frequently abused for anticompetitive purposes.
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
Filed Under: anticompetitive, antitrust, copyright, monopoly, zoe lofgren
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"get" the issues? No, more like "agrees with Mike". Elected officials have also refereed to the internet as a series of tubes. Does that mean they "get" the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is it? I thought it was a series of interconnected servers and computers, but what would I know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By "get" copyright Mike means that Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren actually acknowledges that there are glaring problems with the current copyright system. What world do you live in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I know! You mean it isn't JUST a series of tubes. Aaaaaah. AND, the tubes have stuff inside them (yes, stuff is the technical word). Then, of course, there are boxes connecting different tubes together.
I'm still trying to figure out how they make the invisible tube that gets the intarweb to my laptop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Must be angry dude on some uppers. I am not even sure what kind of hyper fallacy this is, seeing how there is confusion between a single person with another single person, a single person with a group of people and basically complete failure to understand the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there turns out to be some actual tech-related things posted I'll be happy. Otherwise I'll just delete this shortcut and move on. I'm hoping to see some good techstuff soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! I'm a Troll!!! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! I'm a Troll!
Go back to the hole troll. Copyright and patents are what is LIMITING technology. And if you don't see articles about technology on the site, you are either blind or stupid, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this seemingly single-minded agenda to get rid of copyrights.
I'm wary anytime someone takes a single-minded view on issues
that are complex and multivalent. If you're single-minded,
you'll miss the truth and hurt people in the process.
I'm open to how this all pans out. I just want to make
sure people are respected in their artistic vocation (as most people
are in other vocations).
I see Techdirt question certain things that have been accepted,
perhaps unquestionably, in the past, yet also accepting unquestioningly
certain things that could be questioned. And the picking and choosing
seems to serve an agenda (I said "seems" I'm not saying you guys are bad people, and maybe the agenda is well-meaning). That concerns me. For example, I could
easily challenge the accepted view that "property" or "physical goods"
can belong to someone and have value, whereas intangibles are treated
differently. If you talk to most Native Americans (with the traditional
Native American view) they believe the idea of owning property,
or "part of the land" is preposterous and nonsensical. Yet the
assumption that something has value monetarily just because it's
a physical good is just that - an assumption. It's a created idea
that can be accepted or discarded, just like the idea of copyrights.
Yet you guys assume it's valid (judging from past remarks), because it serves your argument.
If everything was free, I'd be totally fine with getting rid of
copyrights, etc. But we don't' live in that society, and why
should artists be asked to make a sacrifice before everyone
else (giving up a certain right - and whatever you say, it
is a sacrifice and people would suffer. As much as you guys
like to use Trent Reznor as an example, he said in his blog,
concerning free downloading, "This sucks for artists." I don't
see you quoting him on that much.)?
Call it Socialism
or whatever you want, but if you pay me enough to take care
of my living costs and to fund my future projects, then
sure, everyone can have my songs and enjoy them, remix,
whatever for free. But you guys are pushing the whole marketplace
driven ideology (along with some kind of utopian-seeming
information should be free idea - which R.U. Sirius,
one of the first proponents of that, now says he was
WRONG about) while trying to take away one of the things
that helps artists to protect their market commodities (yes,
you say that the Constitution wasn't meant to protect artists,
then we should amend it so it does).
I see some clear contradictions. And when that
happens, it's partly because the issue is complex,
and partly because everything is being driven by
an agenda, or ideology. Danger Will Robinson!!!
Cheers,
Robert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one has said anything of the sort. You seem to be confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism.
If someone claims your song as their own, that's an entirely different issue that has little to do with copyright directly. Oh, and there are also very good market-based means to deal with such copying: make the accusation public. We've seen this plenty of times right here, where a less-well-known artist claims a more well known artist copied their music... and it tends to bring a *lot* more attention on the original artist.
But don't confuse claiming something as your own with a copyright issue. They're related, but different.
I could
easily challenge the accepted view that "property" or "physical goods"
can belong to someone and have value, whereas intangibles are treated
differently. If you talk to most Native Americans (with the traditional
Native American view) they believe the idea of owning property,
or "part of the land" is preposterous and nonsensical. Yet the
assumption that something has value monetarily just because it's
a physical good is just that - an assumption. It's a created idea
that can be accepted or discarded, just like the idea of copyrights.
Not quite. You're confusing semantics with economics. The issue where property rights comes into play is when there's scarcity. The reason native Americans did not have issues around property was because there wasn't a scarcity issue. Land was abundant. The whole reason property rights evolved was to deal with the efficient allocation of those scarce resources. It's not an artifical construct, it's economics.
along with some kind of utopian-seeming
information should be free idea
No. We don't say info should be free. We say that it will be free. That's just the fundamental economic nature of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
You do a grave disservice to your argument when you attempt to indict the entire concept of copyrights rather than focus on the apparent abuses therein.
You write:
Could that finally be changing back to a recognition that copyrights are monopolies and deserve the same scrutiny as any other economic monopoly?
That monopolies are "illegal" is a consequence of a Congressional statute. But for those statutes, monopolies would be perfectly legitimate. In other words, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a monopoly. Further demonstration of this fact is that Congress may allow monopolies in certain industries, indeed they do. Take for instance the NCAA, MLB, and the NFL.
The suggestion that copyright as a *concept* ought be subject to antitrust analysis is, therefore, completely asinine. This is so because the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to institute a system of copyrights, and they have utilized that power to implement the Copyright Act.
None of that is to say that certain private entities haven't utilized copyright in a way that has created an antitrust problem. Indeed, that may very well be true. However, to infer from this that the concept of copyright is itself an antitrust violation is specious and uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
You do a grave disservice to your argument when you attempt to indict the entire concept of copyrights rather than focus on the apparent abuses therein.
You write:
Could that finally be changing back to a recognition that copyrights are monopolies and deserve the same scrutiny as any other economic monopoly?
That monopolies are "illegal" is a consequence of a Congressional statute. But for those statutes, monopolies would be perfectly legitimate. In other words, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a monopoly. Further demonstration of this fact is that Congress may allow monopolies in certain industries, indeed they do. Take for instance the NCAA, MLB, and the NFL.
The suggestion that copyright as a *concept* ought be subject to antitrust analysis is, therefore, completely asinine. This is so because the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to institute a system of copyrights, and they have utilized that power to implement the Copyright Act.
None of that is to say that certain private entities haven't utilized copyright in a way that has created an antitrust problem. Indeed, that may very well be true. However, to infer from this that the concept of copyright is itself an antitrust violation is specious and uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
No where did I read that copyright protections should be abolished, only that they should be monitored like any other goverment sanctioned monopoly.
Also, you seem to contradict yourself here:
The suggestion that copyright as a *concept* ought be subject to antitrust analysis is, therefore, completely asinine.
None of that is to say that certain private entities haven't utilized copyright in a way that has created an antitrust problem.
It stands to reason that if "certain private entities" have used copyright protection in an antitrust fashion then copyrght should be subject to antitrust analysis.
Personally, I'm amazed it hasn't been looked into before. You have the Labels who buy up all the rights to all these songs, but their prices never compete. Ever. If they did, their prices would go down. In fact, when iTunes opened up tiered pricing, most of the popular songs jumped to $1.29.. regardless of which major label held the rights to the songs. Wouldn't economics say that one savvy businessman would leave his prices alone to draw more customers to buy his product? CD prices have only started to drop to make buying them at all more attractive, not competition between major Labels. Isn't price fixing illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
I didn't say the whole system was a problem. Nor did Lofgren. She's talking about abusing these gov't granted monopolies for anticompetitive purposes.
That monopolies are "illegal" is a consequence of a Congressional statute. But for those statutes, monopolies would be perfectly legitimate. In other words, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a monopoly.
You're arguing against something you seem to think I said, rather than what I actually said. I'm not saying monopolies are illegal. I'm saying (actually, Lofgren is saying) that because copyrights are a gov't granted monopoly, they deserve scrutiny as any gov't granted monopoly does. That doesn't mean they're illegal. I'm not sure what made you jump to that conclusion.
Further demonstration of this fact is that Congress may allow monopolies in certain industries, indeed they do. Take for instance the NCAA, MLB, and the NFL.
Actually, if I remember correctly, Congress has only granted the exception for MLB, but not for the NFL... but that's neither here nor there.
I'm not sure what that has to do with copyright though or abusing it for anti-competitive purposes.
The suggestion that copyright as a *concept* ought be subject to antitrust analysis is, therefore, completely asinine. This is so because the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to institute a system of copyrights, and they have utilized that power to implement the Copyright Act.
Again, you seem to be reading more into this than was said.
None of that is to say that certain private entities haven't utilized copyright in a way that has created an antitrust problem.
Um. You just agreed with what I and Lofgren were saying. *shakes head*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
A very strict reading of the constitution would hold that copyrights and patents are the only monopolies Congress is authorized to grant. This seems to have been James Madison's view. A broader view has however prevailed of late, which holds that Congress may use its commerce-clause power to grant limited sui-generis intellectual monopolies, as in boat-hulls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monopolies are not illegal
I don't believe Mike has ever said that copyright itself should be abolished. He often says that abuses of copyright should be curbed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A California politician who is sane about Copyright?!
This might be the first sane quote about Copyright that I've heard from ANY California politician, EVER. The Congress people in my district have permanent brown noses from tongue-inspecting Disney's and all the other Hollywood Studio's crevices, in confusion about where all their campaign donations are produced from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A California politician who is sane about Copyright?!
From the public's pockets to Congress' by way of the MAFIAA's, hence the confusion. Congress thinks the money comes directly from the industry. That's why we should stop buying mainstream content and not get it for free either, so campaign funding gets reduced and the industry can't push for laws to shut down the internet by claiming that P2P 'piracy' is the reason for their reduced income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dollar signs in his eyes started being replaced by tears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop shilling!!!
Correction. They are limited monopolies granted for a short time to encourage inventors and authors. You continue to twist reality to suit your underLIEing motives. How much do the patent thieves pay you to write this trash?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop shilling!!!
That's the stated purpose, you are LIEght on details proving that's what happens in real life. How much do the patent trolls pay you to post asinine comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Innovation isn't just nailing together two things that have never been nailed together before. It's coming up with new things to nail together. It's the difference between assembling ideas and actually having one of your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
antitrust
Lone inventor, Chester Carlson, frustrated with expense required to copy patents, submitted to USPTO his invention to reproduce documents. He rose from unimaginable poverty. His Xerox machine interested Battelle Memorial Institute. He agreed to give them 3/4 of future profits in exchange for three (3) thousand dollars and their promise to advance the technology. The invention eventually found its way to Haloid Corporation which invested 75 million. Xerox was a commitment to innovation from the very beginning. It was so successful the FTC became concerned.
Legal and political pressure on Xerox by 1975 forced them to accept the FTC's aggressive antitrust position and compulsory licensing mandate. It opened the floodgates to competition. In 1972 Xerox owned 100 percent of the market for plain paper copiers. Four years later in 1976 their market share dropped to 14%. The FTC didn't calculate the impact of of their actions. Intent on cultivating US competitiveness by royalty free giveaways, foreign competitors such as Canon, Toshiba, Sharp, Panasonic, Konica, and Minolta jumped in and claimed significant American market share. Dissembling inventor infrastructure has unforeseen consequences. Rash and fear-based judgments and actions destroy decades of the creative expression, innovation and invention, persistence, and production and accepts in its place a dumb-down perspective with disingenuous positions, turf wars, that will further undermine the U.S. economy and potential for recovery.
Source: The Invisible Edge (2009) Mark Blaxill and Ralph Eckardt, Pgs. 227-232. Penguin Group.
Ralph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: antitrust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paid Bloggers
Some serve to harass disgruntled clients for big business which does not understand that delivering fair value and good service is the best way to cultivate a good reputation.
Others promote big company's political goals.
At this point I think that reasonable people may wonder if TechDIRT is a haven for both types of promotion of less than reputable businesses which are looking for insight into how they can cover their their tracks.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paid Bloggers
Really, Ronald? Please point them out. In every case once such a blogger has been exposed, the damage to their reputation is huge. It's just not worth it.
I recognize you disagree with what I write, but stooping so low as to accuse us of somehow being "paid" by companies to write stuff -- on a post that I directly reported on, no less, is beneath even you.
Please, retract this defamatory comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]