Professor Stephen Carlisle gives us a point by point refutation of the DOJ’s astroturf position on 100% licensing.
Getting the right result for our corporate masters. We need to get the OIG to investigate or even recommend the disbanding of the DOJ Antitrust Litigation Section III over their handling of the 100% song licensing rule. This is getting totally ridiculous. First: there is the very real chance of corruption here as this appears […]
The Association Of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) is extremely disappointed with the DOJ’s official announcement yesterday regarding their decision on no changes being allowed to the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees and the enforcement of 100% licensing as opposed to fractional licensing which has always been the norm.
Once again, the DOJ has failed to take into consideration the innumerable comments from not only songwriters and music publishers (and their representative organizations) but also our own Copyright Office.
We fully support all legal and legislative efforts announced yesterday to be undertaken by BMI and ASCAP to protect our fellow publishers as well as all songwriters and composers. The DOJ has inserted themselves into our business where they don’t belong and it has both domestic and international ramifications.
As stated in our previous July 12th joint statement with the CMPA and A2IM, 100% licensing is 100% wrong.
Read the press release on Association of Independent Music Publishers
Good thing Renata Hesse is on the case!
The evidence shows that Google & Facebook — by far the world’s most dominant Internet gatekeepers – are not an Internet advertising “duopoly,” but worse, two separate Internet advertising monopoly platforms, one in search advertising and another in social media advertising.
That’s because search and social media advertising are not competitive substitutes for each other, but are proving to be synergistic advertising complements to each other in company marketing campaigns, because generally search advertising excels at lead generation and local business visibility while social media advertising generally excels at building brand awareness and interactivity with consumers.
Tellingly, after beginning to directly compete in social in 2011 and in search in 2013, Google and Facebook both abruptly, coincidentally, and effectively stopped competing directly with each other in both the search and social media markets in 2014.
Apparently, they either jointly agreed in 2014 to divide up the marketplace and no longer directly compete with each other to maximize their exceptional mobile growth and profitability; or they concluded independently — from their initial directly competitive forays into the other’s core markets — that the other commanded unbeatable monopoly network effects, so not directly competing with each other would maximize their exceptional mobile growth and profitability.
This profound lack of competition among the world’s two most dominant Internet edge platforms is highly relevant to: the EU antitrust charges against Google in search, mobile, and advertising, and the EU’s privacy investigations into Google and Facebook; antitrust authorities’ antitrust investigations of Google and these markets in the U.S. and around the world; and also the FCC’s core competitive assumptions underlying its Open Internet Order, and its proposed Title II ISP privacy rules and Set-Top Box unbundling rules.
Google: do as we say, not as we do.
Google’s Take Action page explains net neutrality: “The Internet should be competitive and open. … It’s a level playing field, where new entrants and established players can reach users on an equal footing. If Internet access providers can block some services and cut special deals that prioritize some companies’ content over others that would threaten the innovation that makes the Internet awesome.”
Does Google walk its net neutrality talk?
As a result of five years of investigation and evidence collection, the EU has formally charged Google with abuses of its >90% dominance in four separate markets in three separate antitrust cases — search/shopping, Android mobile, and advertising.
Essentially these collective antitrust charges describe a Google that creates an “unlevel playing field where new entrants and established players” cannot “reach users on an equal footing,” so that Google can block some services and cut special deals” for itself, “that prioritize” Google’s “content over others” content.
Listen to how EU antitrust authorities describe their evidence that shows how Google has engaged in systematic, non-neutral, gatekeeper-like behaviors, ecosystem-wide — against users, competitors, advertisers, publishers, adtech providers, device manufacturers, mobile operators, app developers and content providers.
Google’s non-neutral gatekeeper treatment of competitors’ search traffic
The EU charges Google diverts users’ “traffic” from competitors’ content to Google’s.
“Google has sought to maximise traffic to its own websites…” The EU’s “preliminary conclusion [is] that Google has abused its dominant position by systematically favouring its own comparison shopping service in its general search results. The additional evidence relates, amongst other things, to the way Google favours its own comparison shopping service over those of competitors, the impact of a website’s prominence of display in Google’s search results on its traffic, and the evolution of traffic to Google’s comparison shopping service compared to its competitors. The Commission is concerned that users do not necessarily see the most relevant results in response to queries – this is to the detriment of consumers, and stifles innovation.” [Bold added]