Supreme Court Lets Price Fixing Claims Against Major Labels Over Digital Music Move Forward
from the fix-that dept
For many years, we wondered why the major record labels weren't brought up on price fixing charges concerning their various digital music deals. It involved all of the major labels working out deals where the price of music was exactly the same across the board and where it was the labels themselves who got to determine the end-user price rather than the retailer, which seemed like clear cases of price fixing. It used to be that manufacturers were not allowed to require a retailer to price in a certain way, as that would be prima facie evidence of price fixing but more recently rulings have dialed back that rule. Still, it seemed like some of the other aspects of digital music pricing still represented clear price fixing. It took long enough but finally some people sued. While a lower court had tossed out the lawsuit, last year we noted that the 2nd Circuit appeals court had reinstated it. The labels appealed to the Supreme Court, who has now allowed the case to move forward by rejecting an appeal from the labels. At this point, I wonder if the labels won't try to settle the lawsuit in an attempt to avoid a full trial. The chances that the labels might lose seems decently high and the costs to them could be quite high.
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: collusion, price fixing, record labels, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, the labels are necessary as an alternative to self-promotion. There is still a place for the Big Three, provided they can dial back their reckless greed and keep to the promotion arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There, I fixed that for you. It doesn't have to be the Big Three. Just because six year olds think dinosaurs are cool, it doesn't mean we need them to still be walking around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry but
But, I just came across this and absolutely must share it, especially here.
www.whyweprotest.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much of the pricing of digital music has been as a result of Apple's choices on how to market things. They set the original 99 cent price, and everyone who wanted to play had to join them. That sort of price pretty much establishes the market.
Over time, the labels pushed for higher prices, and Apple allowed there to be multiple price points. The higher price points also make Apple more income.
I think this lawsuit is without merit, and the original court got it right. With a very conservative / pro buisness supreme court, it is very unlikely it will get past them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Supreme Court isn't likely to take the case until there is enough out there to work from, and the question is narrowed to something that can be argued in the short time permitted to each side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Supreme Court isn't likely to take the case until there is enough out there to work from, and the question is narrowed to something that can be argued in the short time permitted to each side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, this sort of thing has been tried before in this industry.
The record labels lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Typically it's OK for big corporations and major labels to break laws, just so long as poor individuals don't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's more.
Why do all hardback books always start out at $29.99?
Why do all non-HD games start out $49.99, and HD $59.99?
Why do all movies now cost $24.99 for DVD and $34.99 for BD?
It's ridiculously apparent except when more laws are being passed to protect these prices.
Nothing's going to change.
I'm betting, should the price fixing be found guilty, this industry will "lower" the price of songs to 49 cents but place a 50 cent "transaction" fee to process the download.
Never underestimate the potential humans have to screw other humans of their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's more.
Price fixing requires agreement amongst all the parties, usually a meeting, a document, or an agreement made. There is no such thing. Rather, one set a price, and the others choose to either meet that price or go lower. Over time, the market settles in at a price where all parties are happy with what they are making.
Remember, much of this stuff is "non competing" goods. They compete mostly on their merits to the potential buyers. They are not all the same, they are in fact all different.
Airlines are a great example. All planes can get you from A to B, the prices vary depending on service, availability, etc. Quite often, one company will be a market price leader, and others will follow on those prices. On one side, they don't want to have empty seats, and on the other side, they don't want to leave money on the table.
Public pricing is very simple to work out, considering all the prices are out there.
The only thing that is "ridiculously apparent" is that all the players are watching each other very closely. Why do you think there was so much concern in the book selling market when certain places suddenly marked things way down? It is because each company as a result has to respond, like it or not. They are all watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's more.
If I remember correctly the major airlines also got nailed for price fixing in the late 80's or early 90's. I cant remember the details (maybe someone can help) but prices fell and price wars broke out afterwards. One or two may have gone out of business or got bought up by others because of it.
Thats the way a free market is supposed to work. The consumer demand sets the price. Not the corporations marketing division. If they set the price too high consumers dont buy and the corporation goes out of business.
Personally, I wont miss the major labels. The "artists" will still be around making music. There will just be a different way of getting it out to the consumer to be purchased, and probably at a price that the consumer finds more reasonable, thus lowering "piracy".
Keep in mind "piracy/black market" is not the problem. "Piracy" is the result of the true problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's more.
The only problem with your thinking here is that the consumer doesnt care about the costs to the corporations or what they might think the price should be. Thats including the overly inflated salaries of the corporations which are included in those "marginal costs" Consumers only care about the cost to themselves compared to the value received. If the corporation (company) cant find a way to satisfy the consumer then they lose that sale. Lose enough sales, then they go out of business. The corporations can argue "marginal costs" all they want but it falls on "deaf" (consumer) ears. and they can cry about it all the way to bankruptcy court. No one really cares. They will just be replaced by another company willing to work with the consumer. Thats true compitition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's more.
A competitive market presupposes consumer demand, and enough sellers (or maybe enough sellers without monopoly power) and low enough barriers to entry into the market to allow for competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's more.
No, I didnt.
"A competitive market presupposes consumer demand, and enough sellers (or maybe enough sellers without monopoly power) and low enough barriers to entry into the market to allow for competition."
I believe you miss the point on what quantifies "consumer demand". Consumer demand is nothing that should be taken for granted and meeting that demand is not strictly about having ample quantity on hand for sale or distribution to match the numbers. It involves (but not limited to) quantity, quality, and afford-ability. With an emphasis on afford-ability. You could have the only company in existence with a product (physical or content) , with unlimited supply (ie digital content),that you perceive as the public not being able to do with out. If your price is too high some people may buy but most will not. If they feel they absolutely have to have it, but not at your price, they will find another way to get it. Including building another company to make a similar (or the exact same) product cheaper (ie knock-offs, "piracy" ,black market). These are not forces that work against a free (and competitive) market but are actually a part of that same market. Working against higher prices and driving innovation. It has been that way for thousands of years.
An example would be when a cave man first learned to crack open a walnut by smashing it between two rocks a second one said open these two and ill give you one. but when the first one got greedy and told the third one it would cost him tree walnuts to get one back, he said ill get my own damn rocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's more.
Band has 4 members. They work for months writing songs, come together in a rehearsal space and work on the songs, perhaps with a producer on hand to help them out to smooth things out. They perhaps hire external song writers to help out, maybe a really good programmer for some sequncing stuff, whatever. Finally they go on and record it in a studio, with an engineer, a producer, and a few other staff members (like equipment roadies, whatever). At the end of that, the final product is mastered, artwork designed, final pre-production test copies made and checked, etc.
It's now a year since they started writing to get to the finish product. There are countless man hours put into the product, the studio time, the hired on people, etc. let's say they went through $250,000 to do it.
Then they produce 500,000 CD copies for sale, each with a marginal production cost (your number) of $1. The problem? The fixed up front costs have to get covered somewhere. So now, your $1 is already $1.50, and we still haven't covered any of the costs of getting the product to the retailers, stocking, maintaining, and finally selling the product, the distribution, their credit card discounts, they invoicing and collection from the record label to the distributor and all on down the line.
See? Your $1 "marginal cost" is just part of what it costs. When you stop thinking about marginal costs as the only costs, things make way more sense.
If airlines ignored the cost of buying the aircraft, of the gate fees, the ground staff, the maintenance people, and all those other things, they could fly for a whole lot less. But reality has marginal and non-marginal costs coming together to define what the true break even point is.
The only difference is that airlines have a fixed limit on the number of seats on a given plane, which means they use rate management / yield management to maximize revenue per seat, where as the band can produce the 500,001st copy for only the marginal and distribution costs, and perhaps finally start making some money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's more.
This is where the problem resides. I'm quite confident consumers aren't happy with paying the prices they do. Had this any merit, piracy wouldn't be as significant an issue.
In addition, it's rather ridiculous to assume products costing little to produce aren't fixed in cost to recoup immediate expenses until additional windows are opened to release lower priced items.
I'll concede I may be confusing the two, but it's not making a difference when, as the case clearly shows, people can't reasonably find competitive products for less price via many competing retailers.
I also find the movie studios' "deal" with Redbox and Netflix very questionable as well.
It may not be price fixing, but it sure as hell isn't fair business practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's more.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Premonition
"It was further specified that the game would retail within the budget range, priced at $19.99 in the United States."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's more.
What's up with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Court didn't do anything to encourage or allow things to move forward, they just declined to get involved at this point. it isn't like both sides presented their case before the court and they ruled on anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you are talking about an appeal, declining to hear it is essentially the same as rejecting it, and still points to active participation on behalf of the supreme court (keep in mind that there is nowhere left for the labels to appeal this now, so the court tossed out their last chance at stopping the lawsuit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is very different from a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court rejects (without comment) many more cases than it hears each year. It doesn't say anything about the merits, it often says more about the timing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe that, in this case, the decision was based on the merits of the appeal - but again hopefully someone can step in to clarify
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them their day in court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well if you don't let the labels fix prices, then they would "gasp!" have to compete with each other. If you make us compete with each other then prices will go down. If prices go down then we are going to have to squeeze artists or our execs and lawyers would have to make less money.
So really you are just hurting the artists.
Its quite similar to their anti file sharing defense.
Well if you let people share the things that they "buy" (scratch that) "rent" then we will lose money. If we lose money then our execs and lawyers will make less money so we will have to raise prices. If prices go up then we will be squeezing the consumer.
So really you are just hurting the consumer.
The only ones immune to the hurt is the entertainment bureaucracy, and any attack on it is redirected right back to the artists and consumers. This is why I wouldn't mind seeing all the big labels go bankrupt. Would artists get paid less? Probably. Would consumers have to pay more? Also likely. Would buying media finally be about supporting the artists who make it instead of the middlemen? Absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The world is fifty percent middlemen, and they don't take kindly to anyone interfering with their middlin'..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price Fixing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price Fixing
Apple can set their own prices, even set them lower than .99 if they see fit, but the threat would be the labels pulling their stuff...and I suppose the agreements they have regarding distribution rights are a further complication - those costs vs. price they can set to recoup them.
I've just lost myself, ha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]