Comments on: Why RIAA is Silent on XM-Sirius http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/ The Business of Technology Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:33:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Isaac, Rotterdam, Holland http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-854748 Isaac, Rotterdam, Holland Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:11:51 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-854748 <p>Just think of the file material the DoJ requested and got: 6 million pages to study. I know it is important not to create a positive precedent for a merger which is alledgedly viewed as a monopoly. Of course, there is this 10-year-old FCC limitation in that one company should not be able to control the entire sprectum. But that was 10 years ago. Moreover, it is a merger of equals, combining forces to obtain efficiency and benfits for the consumer, their astonishing 17 Million Voluntary Subscribers!</p> <p>For years I had not studied anti-trust law and boy, what subject to read. However, it comes down to recognizing market power and monopoly power -- both do not apply in this case.</p> <p>In my view therefore a monopoly 100% not the case -- as the strongest merger-opponent is the NAB: why would they worry, if not fishing in the same, wide pond? Cross-elasticity is the word; it is not as if radiolisteners have starved from entertainment before the SDARS were there... on the contrary: the market landscape has become so wide every consumer has a free choice of radioconsumption. If as a consumer you desire uninterrupted, ad-free reception and CD-quality throughout the country, driving from coast-to-coast of course you buy one, or two or soon: just one supplier of this service. If you can't or do not want to pay: fine, stick to good old FM or AM or CD or even cassette. Even if the happily merged companies nastily would up their charges to say $29.99/month , they would shoot in their feet as consumers still have a choice and would churn rapidly. This is not about about a milk-cartel! So DoJ, so FCC: this is 2008 go ahead, give the merger a greenlight and get back to bigger matters.</p> Just think of the file material the DoJ requested and got: 6 million pages to study. I know it is important not to create a positive precedent for a merger which is alledgedly viewed as a monopoly.
Of course, there is this 10-year-old FCC limitation in that one company should not be able to control the entire sprectum. But that was 10 years ago. Moreover, it is a merger of equals, combining forces to obtain efficiency and benfits for the consumer, their astonishing 17 Million Voluntary Subscribers!

For years I had not studied anti-trust law and boy, what subject to read.
However, it comes down to recognizing market power and monopoly power — both do not apply in this case.

In my view therefore a monopoly 100% not the case — as the strongest merger-opponent is the NAB: why would they worry, if not fishing in the same, wide pond? Cross-elasticity is the word; it is not as if radiolisteners have starved from entertainment before the SDARS were there… on the contrary: the market landscape has become so wide every consumer has a free choice of radioconsumption. If as a consumer you desire uninterrupted, ad-free reception and CD-quality throughout the country, driving from coast-to-coast of course you buy one, or two or soon: just one supplier of this service. If you can’t or do not want to pay: fine, stick to good old FM or AM or CD or even cassette.
Even if the happily merged companies nastily would up their charges to say $29.99/month , they would shoot in their feet as consumers still have a choice and would churn rapidly. This is not about about a milk-cartel!
So DoJ, so FCC: this is 2008 go ahead, give the merger a greenlight and get back to bigger matters.

]]> By: GigaOM » Blog Archive XM/Sirius: The Wedding March Goes On « http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-720725 GigaOM » Blog Archive XM/Sirius: The Wedding March Goes On « Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:30:47 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-720725 <p>[...] months, there had been chatter about a possible corporate coupling between XM Satellite Radio (XMSR) and Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI). The discussion reached a [...]</p> [...] months, there had been chatter about a possible corporate coupling between XM Satellite Radio (XMSR) and Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI). The discussion reached a [...]

]]> By: James Cain http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90929 James Cain Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:34:40 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90929 <p>When I was a kid, there was just radio. After tv arrived, radio's primary audience became those in vehicles. Now, you can listen to any number of things in your vehicle. For example, when cassette and cd players were put in vehicles, radio had it's first competitor. I think this market now is a purely audio market and radio is just part of it.</p> When I was a kid, there was just radio. After tv arrived, radio’s primary audience became those in vehicles.
Now, you can listen to any number of things in your vehicle.
For example, when cassette and cd players were put in vehicles, radio had it’s first competitor.
I think this market now is a purely audio market and radio is just part of it.

]]> By: Frederik http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90930 Frederik Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:58:07 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90930 <p>It seems like terrestrial radio will be for the poor while satelite radio will be for the less-poor! I for one stopped listening to radio, too many commercials, and too much commercial music, where's all the good music?! (oh yeah, on KNAC!)</p> It seems like terrestrial radio will be for the poor while satelite radio will be for the less-poor!
I for one stopped listening to radio, too many commercials, and too much commercial music, where’s all the good music?! (oh yeah, on KNAC!)

]]> By: pwb http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90927 pwb Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:01:16 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90927 <p>Doesn't the fact that the NAB strenuously opposes the merger futher the case that it's not actually a monopoly?</p> Doesn’t the fact that the NAB strenuously opposes the merger futher the case that it’s not actually a monopoly?

]]> By: David Touve http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90915 David Touve Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:52:07 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90915 <p>The information in your quadratns needs some updating. From the present rate at which mechanical (per song) licenses are granted, to the rate on webcasts, and the split of SoundExchance royalties. However, it was probably helpful to explain to people the multiple layers of rights in music.</p> The information in your quadratns needs some updating. From the present rate at which mechanical (per song) licenses are granted, to the rate on webcasts, and the split of SoundExchance royalties. However, it was probably helpful to explain to people the multiple layers of rights in music.

]]> By: DEC http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90916 DEC Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:46:53 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90916 <p>Once again, the real problem is that there are too damned many lawyers. I have a master's degree and I can barely follow the legal issues raised in this article.</p> Once again, the real problem is that there are too damned many lawyers. I have a master’s degree and I can barely follow the legal issues raised in this article.

]]> By: Hank Williams http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90918 Hank Williams Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:46:03 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90918 <p>I just want to clarify something that is slightly misstated or confusing. The recording industry is divided into the recording owners and the song owners. The recording is the actual recording of the song. The song owners own the notes and the lyrics. The record companies do not receive payments for the performance of the recording from terrestrial radio (they do from digital - which is part of the whole soundexchange uproar). The song owners <em>do</em> receive payments for the performance of the songs when played on radio. So it is confusing to say that terrestrial does not pay a performance royalty. They pay the song owners (also known as the publishers - represented by ascap and bmi) but not the performance royalty to the recording owner.</p> I just want to clarify something that is slightly misstated or confusing. The recording industry is divided into the recording owners and the song owners. The recording is the actual recording of the song. The song owners own the notes and the lyrics. The record companies do not receive payments for the performance of the recording from terrestrial radio (they do from digital - which is part of the whole soundexchange uproar). The song owners do receive payments for the performance of the songs when played on radio. So it is confusing to say that terrestrial does not pay a performance royalty. They pay the song owners (also known as the publishers - represented by ascap and bmi) but not the performance royalty to the recording owner.

]]> By: Mac http://gigaom.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90920 Mac Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:22:11 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/copyright-xm-sirius-merger/#comment-90920 <p>hmmm...interesting observation "The enemy of my enemy is my friend — sometimes."</p> <p>Who is who's enemy here??</p> hmmm…interesting observation “The enemy of my enemy is my friend — sometimes.”

Who is who’s enemy here??

]]>