Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM On Friday the the International Center for Law & Economics filed comments with the FCC in response to Chairman Wheeler’s NPRM (proposed rules) to “unlock” . . .
On Friday the the International Center for Law & Economics filed comments with the FCC in response to Chairman Wheeler’s NPRM (proposed rules) to “unlock” the MVPD (i.e., cable and satellite subscription video, essentially) set-top box market. Plenty has been written on the proposed rulemaking—for a few quick hits (among many others) see, e.g., Richard Bennett, Glenn Manishin, Larry Downes, Stuart Brotman, Scott Wallsten, and me—so I’ll dispense with the background and focus on the key points we make in our comments.
Our comments explain that the proposal’s assertion that the MVPD set-top box market isn’t competitive is a product of its failure to appreciate the dynamics of the market (and its disregard for economics). Similarly, the proposal fails to acknowledge the complexity of the markets it intends to regulate, and, in particular, it ignores the harmful effects on content production and distribution the rules would likely bring about.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Today’s Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) Google decision marks yet another regulator joining the chorus of competition agencies around the world that have already dismissed similar . . .
Today’s Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) Google decision marks yet another regulator joining the chorus of competition agencies around the world that have already dismissed similar complaints relating to Google’s Search or Android businesses (including the US FTC, the Korea FTC, the Taiwan FTC, and AG offices in Texas and Ohio).
A number of courts around the world have also rejected competition complaints against the company, including courts in the US, France, the UK, Germany, and Brazil.
TOTM Netflix’s latest net neutrality hypocrisy (yes, there have been others. See here and here, for example) involves its long-term, undisclosed throttling of its video traffic on AT&T’s and . . .
Netflix’s latest net neutrality hypocrisy (yes, there have been others. See here and here, for example) involves its long-term, undisclosed throttling of its video traffic on AT&T’s and Verizon’s wireless networks, while it lobbied heavily for net neutrality rules from the FCC that would prevent just such throttling by ISPs.
It was Netflix that coined the term “strong net neutrality,” in an effort to import interconnection (the connections between ISPs and edge provider networks) into the net neutrality fold. That alone was a bastardization of what net neutrality purportedly stood for, as I previously noted…
TOTM As ICLE argued in its amicus brief, the Second Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Apple Inc. is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2007 Leegin decision, and creates . . .
As ICLE argued in its amicus brief, the Second Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Apple Inc. is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2007 Leegin decision, and creates a circuit split with the Third Circuit based on that court’s Toledo Mack ruling. Moreover, the negative consequences of the court’s ruling will be particularly acute for modern, high-technology sectors of the economy, where entrepreneurs planning to deploy new business models will now face exactly the sort of artificial deterrents that the Court condemned in Trinko…
TOTM The appellate court’s 2015 decision affirming the district court’s finding of per se liability in United States v. Apple provoked controversy over the legal and . . .
The appellate court’s 2015 decision affirming the district court’s finding of per se liability in United States v. Apple provoked controversy over the legal and economic merits of the case, its significance for antitrust jurisprudence, and its implications for entrepreneurs, startups, and other economic actors throughout the economy. Apple has filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, which will decide on February 19th whether to hear the case.
Amicus Brief Although the immediate question presented in this case is whether Internet-based retransmission services are eligible for the compulsory license made available by Section 111 of the Copyright Act, this statute does not exist in a vacuum.
Although the immediate question presented in this case is whether Internet-based retransmission services are eligible for the compulsory license made available by Section 111 of the Copyright Act, this statute does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, Congress has established a comprehensive statutory regime governing the retransmission of broadcast television through several laws that span two titles of the United States Code. In particular, Section 111’s compulsory license is available only to a “cable system”—a type of broadcast retransmission service that is also subject to, and defined by, a host of statutory requirements enacted by Congress in the 1992 Cable Act. When the Copyright Act is read in conjunction with the Cable Act, as it must be, along with other provisions of the Communications Act and a long line of judicial decisions, the unmistakable conclusion is that Defendants’ service cannot be a “cable system” within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
Of greatest importance to Congress’s legislative framework governing retransmission is the requirement that any entity retransmitting broadcast television—regardless of the technical means—first obtain consent from the owner or primary transmitter of the television programming. By interpreting the Copyright Act’s compulsory license to make it available to Internet-based retransmission services, the lower court undercuts that legislative framework. Although cable systems (and satellite carriers) are eligible for a compulsory copyright license for which they do not need explicit permission from television program owners, under the Communications Act they must still generally obtain a broadcast station’s consent before retransmitting its signal. To obtain this consent, cable companies must generally pay an agreed upon amount to broadcasters on top of statutory copyright royalties. For all other entities that wish to retransmit broadcast television, no compulsory copyright license is available; they must bargain for the right to publicly perform television shows with the shows’ owners.
Defendants seek to sidestep both of these obligations by concocting a supposed loophole in federal law—engaging in a sort of regulatory arbitrage between the Communications Act and the Copyright Act. Thus, Defendants claim that they are both eligible for the compulsory copyright license available to cable systems, and also that their service is technically configured to escape the reach of the Communications Act’s provision empowering broadcast stations to decide whether to consent to a cable system’s retransmission of their signals. Not surprisingly, and as the text and purpose of the Copyright Act and the Communications Act reveal, Congress never authorized this ploy.
Popular Media Internet content and service providers are poised to offer an economically and socially transformative service to millions of people in developing countries: low-cost access to the Web. That is, if regulators and self-proclaimed consumer advocates don’t stop them.
Internet content and service providers are poised to offer an economically and socially transformative service to millions of people in developing countries: low-cost access to the Web. That is, if regulators and self-proclaimed consumer advocates don’t stop them.
The latest skirmish in the never-ending net-neutrality wars concerns Facebook ’s Free Basics, a “zero-rated” service that allows users to access Facebook—and other useful websites—without incurring data charges.
Presentations & Interviews Geoff Manne took part in the Fifth Annual Henry G. Manne Law & Economics Conference in a session on the economic aspects of required disclosure . . .
Geoff Manne took part in the Fifth Annual Henry G. Manne Law & Economics Conference in a session on the economic aspects of required disclosure under federal securities law. Video of the event is embedded below.
Presentations & Interviews The Federal Trade Commission held a conference on January 14, 2016 to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders, including whitehat researchers, academics, industry representatives, consumer advocates, and government regulators...
The Federal Trade Commission held a conference on January 14, 2016 to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders, including white-hat researchers, academics, industry representatives, consumer advocates, and government regulators, to discuss the latest research and trends related to consumer privacy and data security. The FTC called for research to be presented at the conference. Geoff Manne’s slides can be found here. Video of the event is embedded below.
