[IRTalk] FW: Should we break up the tech giants? Not if you ask the economists/NGO's who take money from themRe: Vusi Mahlesela appeals for past Copyright refunds to SA Artists, many whom are Poor

[Dr Leti Kleyn]

·      10.19.18
·      pov<https://www.fastcompany.com/section/pov>
Should we break up the tech giants? Not if you ask the economists who take money from them<https://www.fastcompany.com/90253465/should-we-break-up-the-tech-giants-not-if-you-ask-the-economists-who-take-money-from-them>
This week’s FTC hearings on the growing power of companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google only included economists who have taken money, directly and indirectly, from giant corporations that have a stake in the debate.
[Should we break up the tech giants? Not if you ask the economists who take money from them]
[Photos: Swillklitch/iStock; Flickr users: Anthony Quintano<https://www.flickr.com/photos/quintanomedia/41118893354/in/album-72157694588981641>; Nguyen Hung Vu<https://www.flickr.com/photos/vuhung/23811168542/in/photolist-CpnqCA-CrFcKT-Cpns9w-Ch7cCA-BuaoKh-CrFeJT-CrFr5i-BuaH2h-BuaFKE-BZxXnQ-BuhXnB-Bui5K2-Ch7sQE-CjoAEH-BTb5ca-BTbbza-Bui76t-CjoJTg-BZy8jU-BTbcsT-CpnUDA-BuaUQ7-CjoMUr-Ch7AgS-BZyfCm-Cpo4Ry-Cpo5BS-BTbtHZ-Bub83U-CrFNnP-BZyqeW-BuitvH-BTbApe-CrFUN4-CrFUcp-trCegf-wgbEa1-rMWhgX-oUgsLJ-oWgtpm-wVzTEE-xdd2dc-nPy7GS-o6USLb-o4WgWJ-oWipga-oDPfkP-oDPcwn-o4Qk2U-oWL9vi>; Ervins Strauhmanis<https://www.flickr.com/photos/ervins_strauhmanis/9547580380/in/photostream>; Seattle City Council<https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlecitycouncil/39262177384/in/album-72157663151232297>]
·
·
·
·
By Matt Stoller and Austin Frerick4 minute Read

Amid growing concern over the power of such behemoths as Amazon, Google, Facebook, and other tech giants, in recent months there’s been a bipartisan push for better enforcement of antitrust rules–with even President Trump saying in August that their size and influence could constitute a “very antitrust situation.” The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched its most wide-ranging study of corporate concentration in America in more than 20 years with a series of hearings being held around the country. Chairman Joseph Simons, a practical enforcement-minded leader, launched the hearings by expressing concern over the growing problem of monopoly, which is now found in nearly every sector of the economy. “I approach all of these issues with a very open mind,” said Simons, “very much willing to be influenced by what I see and hear.”

But there’s a problem. The FTC organized these hearings so that Simons and the public would be hearing from many economists who have taken money, directly or indirectly, from giant corporations.

For example, on Monday, the FTC convened a panel titled “The Current Economic Understanding of Multi-Sided Platforms”<https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2018/10/ftc-hearing-3-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century> to look specifically at the most dynamic and dangerous set of concentrated economic actors, the big tech platforms. Every single one of the economists who testified had financial ties to giant corporations.

One example is David Evans, the chairman of the Global Economics Group. Evans scoffed at the danger of platform monopolies. He indicated that the question of “whether Facebook and Google and Amazon are monopolies, it’s all interesting, it’s great to read in the New York Times,” but it’s “not all that relevant” to the practice of antitrust. (FF to 45:30 in the below video) His firm has taken money directly from Microsoft, Visa, the large investment bank SIFMA, and the Chinese giant tech giant Tencent.<http://www.globaleconomicsgroup.com/cv/Evans%2520CV%2520August%25202015.pdf>
[https://video.unrulymedia.com/native/images/in-art-close-icon-128x128-16481b937f87b244a645cdbef0d930f8.png]
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Another example is Howard Shelanski, a partner at Davis Polk. Shelanski is more enforcement-minded, but he expressed caution, testifying that we don’t know enough for antitrust enforcers to understand whether powerful technology companies hold unassailable market positions. Shelanski pointed to his own children, saying that they’ve stopped using Facebook because it’s uncool. (FF to 35:00). As it turns out, his law firm’s clients include Facebook, as well as Comcast, and Chinese search giant Baidu.<https://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2015/07/Davis-Polk.pdf>

Evans and Shelanski are straightforward about their role; both are principals with clients. To bring in more neutral parties, the FTC also had economics professors from prestigious universities. But these professors, while they do academic research, also have lucrative consulting arrangements with firms representing large corporations.

For instance, one panelist was MIT professor of management Catherine Tucker. She isn’t just a professor, though; she also moonlights<http://www.analysisgroup.com/experts-and-consultants/affiliated-experts/catherine-e--tucker/> at the economic consulting firm Analysis Group, has consulted for Microsoft and Facebook<http://s3.amazonaws.com/mitsloan-php/wp-faculty/sites/54/2018/10/01132636/disclosure_ofpotentialconflicts.pdf>, and has received a $155,000 research grant from Google<https://www.googletransparencyproject.org/articles/google-academics-inc>.

Wharton Professor Katja Seim testified as well. She has a second job working for Vega Economics, which sells analysis to many of the major law firms in D.C., who in turn sell services to Fortune 500 companies. She stressed that one normal red flag for monopoly–“supra-normal” profit margins–should not necessarily concern regulators when it comes to tech platforms. (FF to 7:15-7:45).

Also testifying was Boston University economist Michael Salinger, who also works at Charles River Associates. Salinger markets his services<https://crainternationalinc.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/economists-charles-river-associates-cra-assist-google-closing> on the website of the group as leading the economics team that helped Google shut down the FTC antitrust investigation. He told the FTC that American enforcers, as opposed to European enforcers, thought about Google’s “innovation and product design” rather than its monopoly power. (FF to 27:00) His colleague at Boston University, economist Marc Rysman, has a side job at Cornerstone Research, a firm that worked on Google’s acquisition of Admob and ITA. (FF to 4:45)

For instance, the FTC invited University of California, Berkeley economist Joseph Farrell, who offered little, putting forward a classic “on the one hand,on the other hand” set of observations. Economists, he concluded, should “look hard at these issues” and talk to people who are excited about them. Farrell has a side job at the economic consulting firm Bates White Consulting, a firm that has done work for, among others, Comcast<https://www.bateswhite.com/work-125.html> and AT&T<https://www.bateswhite.com/work-31.html>.

In other words, every single economist testifying on the issue of corporate concentration derived income, directly or indirectly, from large corporations. Beyond that, the hearing itself<https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection> was held at the Antonin Scalia Law School, which is financed by Google and Amazon<https://masonlec.org/donors/>.

This is a problem more broadly for the entire set of hearings, which included roughly 40 economists on the payroll of such consulting firms. For example, on a different panel on the state of antitrust law was Dennis Carlton. A professor at the University of Chicago, Carlton has made over $100 million during his career moonlighting as an expert witness for giant corporations<https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-more-than-thousand-bucks-hour-peddling-mega-mergers> through his work with economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon. Carlton told the FTC that we ought to praise large firms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon for technological innovation, and warned<https://competition-consumer-protection-hearings.videoshowcase.net/the-state-of-u-s-antitrust-law-session-1>, “don’t confuse success with an antitrust violation.” (hour 1:25:40)

Why is a college professor able to make a $100 million testifying on behalf of large corporations? As Jesse Eisinger and Justin Elliott at ProPublica noted in their investigation of the industry<https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-more-than-thousand-bucks-hour-peddling-mega-mergers>, “Companies & lawyers that rely on economists as witnesses aren’t looking for neutrality…. [Instead] to be able to be an advocate without seeming to be an advocate.”

This is not to say that taking money from corporations is always wrong. It isn’t. It’s just that a diversity of perspectives matters. If we want to know why corporate monopolies are dominant, just look at who the FTC is listening to. It isn’t you and me.
Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. You can follow him on Twitter at @matthewstoller.
Austin Frerick is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. You can follow him on Twitter at @AustinFrerick.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:23 PM Ashraf Patel <baobabknowledge at gmail.com<mailto:baobabknowledge at gmail.com>> wrote:
We all need to listen to the pleas of the music industry in our country

By Vusi Mahlasela• 12 September 2018
[https://37ugp72ofspp25ltkb3ajwvg-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/DSC_0305-e1536753471918-1600x932.jpg]

Vusi Mahlasela performs after being awarded an honorary doctorate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal on Wednesday, 12 September, 2018. Photo: courtesy of the University Less
1 Reaction

An honorary doctorate was conferred on Vusi Mahlasela by the University of KwaZulu-Natal on Wednesday. He was recognised for his outstanding contribution to the betterment of South African society and to the global music industry. This is an edited version of Mahlasela's acceptance speech.

“If music be the food of love, play on,” says Orsino to Curio in William Shakespeare’s play, Twelfth Night. Indeed, music is the food of love. Music excites the body. Music nourishes the soul. Music expands the brain. Music heals the sick. Music breeds and keeps together families, friends and communities. Music buries the dead. Music brings hope, peace and reconciliation in times of wars. Music does all of these things, and more, in conditions of peace, tranquillity and plenty.

But, is music capable of doing these in our country, South Africa, which is considered the most unequal society in the world? How is it possible for music to do all these if artists themselves die of hunger from exploitation – only to be remembered and celebrated by those who supposed to care for them, government in particular, when they are dead and given glowing obituaries plus, if fortunate, Special State Funerals? How are music lovers supposed to buy the music when they are unemployed? How do those who are fortunate to buy music contribute to the welfare of musicians when they purchase counterfeits in the streets.

Where is the law enforcement in this regard? I am certain that I am not the first to pose these difficult questions. They have been asked many times before, and I suspect the inquiry will continue well into the future. But is anyone listening? Or perhaps should I say; who is supposed to listen? The answer is simply ALL OF US as a nation.

Recently, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (the SABC) announced back payment of needle-time play of music on its channels to 2014. This initiative is welcomed, even though it raises further questions like: is it not too late for the galaxy of musicians who were exploited throughout their careers and died before the cut-off period to enjoy the fruits of their craft? Why the cut-off date in the first instance? What informs it? What’s going to happen to the royalties of the period before this? How much are musicians likely to make since the broadcaster, and all other media outlets in the country, are obsessed with playing overseas music? Just switch on the television set or radio today and you will think you are in America or Europe. Whereas we recognise that we are part of a global society of nations, we must also be proud of our own local arts productions.

Controversies aside, the local music fraternity temporarily tasted a bit of Africa’s musical cake with the 90% local content playing quota. Now we are back to western cultural imposition which indoctrinates the nation to doubt or despise itself. To its credit, though, the SABC has called for public submissions on its editorial policy review. Do we as musicians, music lovers, and the academia – particularly music-based faculties or department – take time to make submissions in this regard to turn things around?

Similarly, what is the take of the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage, as the national cultural policy, on this matter and many others relevant to the livelihood of musicians? Frankly, to say the least, South Africa’s cultural policy is an idealistic one size fits all for the arts. Yet for some considerable time, several African countries regarded music as the preferred cultural policy transmitter for the following reasons as stated by the scholars Lebogang Nawa and Ndwamato Mugovhani in the article, Music as implicit cultural policy instrument in South Africa:A case study of musicians Sello Galane, Rudzani Colbert Mukwevho and Khakhathi Tshisikule” (2017: page 82).

The choice of music as cultural policy leitmotif was not arbitrary. It was not done simply because it is music. The election was influenced by the respect and stature musicians enjoyed in the society as well as the fact that -from a technical perspective – music is a courier or source of other artistic genres in that it inspires, shapes and broadcasts their formations and implementations. Furthermore, music’s reach is wide, its transmission quick and economic incentives viable; it is also entertaining as it is also educational, especially for the youth who are lazy to spend time on other artistic genres like literature, drama and the fine arts. The insight above indeed proves that Shakespeare was correct when he wrote: “If music be the food of love, play on.”

Musicians can only cook, dish and enjoy this food themselves together with those for whom they create it in the first instance if given genuine opportunities when those who have the means can – to use the pun – put their monies where their mouths are. On this note, I call upon all South Africans in the form of citizens, government, academia and business to invest in and support the arts in sustained, tangible and substantive manner. DM


On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Denise Nicholson <Denise.Nicholson at wits.ac.za<mailto:Denise.Nicholson at wits.ac.za>> wrote:
FYI - See:  http://www.ip-watch.org/2018/07/13/deadline-next-week-comments-new-clauses-south-african-copyright-amendment-bill/http://www.ip-watch.org/2018/07/13/deadline-next-week-comments-new-clauses-south-african-copyright-amendment-bill/

Deadline for submissions on specific clauses - 18 JULY 2018.

Regards
Denise



This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.

ASSAf Disclaimer: The views and opinions included in this email belong to their author and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of the organisation. Our employees are obliged not to make any defamatory statements, infringe, or authorise infringement of any legal right. Therefore, the organisation will not accept any liability for such statements included in emails. In case of any damages or other liabilities arising, employees are fully responsible for the content of their emails.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/irtalk/attachments/20181022/9430fad3/attachment-0001.html>