Company EI, company BGM, company UMR, and company WMG together licensed, produced and distributed 80 percent of the digital music that is sold in the US market. They formed a company MN to vend music to the online services which sold songs to the listeners/consumers. Company MN needed all of the useful services to sell songs for the similar price and subject to the same kind of restriction. Music digitization became cheaper but company MN decided to keep its price same. To find: The violation of the antitrust law by MN.

Question

Price Fixing. Together, EMI, Sony BMG MusicEntertainment, Universal Music Group Recordings, Inc., andWarner Music Group Corp. produced, licensed, and distributed 80 percent of the digital music sold in the United States.the companies formed MusicNet to sell music to online services that sold the songs to consumers. MusicNet required allof the services to sell the songs at the same price and subject tothe same restrictions. Digitization of music became cheaper,but MusicNet did not change its prices. Did MusicNet violatethe antitrust laws? Explain. [Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 592 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2010)] (See Section 1 of theSherman Act.)

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 27, Problem 4BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary:Company EI, company BGM, company UMR, and company WMG together licensed, produced and distributed 80 percent of the digital music that is sold in the US market. They formed a company MN to vend music to the online services which sold songs to the listeners/consumers. Company MN needed all of the useful services to sell songs for the similar price and subject to the same kind of restriction. Music digitization became cheaper but company MN decided to keep its price same.

To find: The violation of the antitrust law by MN.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Price Fixing. Together, EMI, Sony BMG MusicEntertainment, Universal Music Group Recordings, Inc., andWarner Music Group Corp. produced, licensed, and distributed 80 percent of the digital music sold in the United States.the companies formed MusicNet to sell music to online services that sold the songs to consumers. MusicNet required allof the services to sell the songs at the same price and subject tothe same restrictions. Digitization of music became cheaper,but MusicNet did not change its prices. Did MusicNet violatethe antitrust laws? Explain. [Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 592 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2010)] (See Section 1 of theSherman Act.)

Noodleoo, a struggling restaurant chain, wants to enact a franchise agreement with Stephen to sell its product through a chain-style franchise. Stephen agrees and opens the store, and 6 months later Noodleoo goes bankrupt. Which is most likely true of this situation? Stephen was not responsible for looking into the financial status of Noodleoo before making the agreement. The Franchise rule does not apply to struggling companies. If Noodleoo was not transparent with its financial data, Stephen has no recourse. If Noodleoo was not transparent with its financial data, it has broken the Franchise Rule.

Intel made large loyalty payments to HP in exchange for HP buying most of their chips from Intel instead of rival AMD. AMD sued Intel under the antitrust laws, and Intel settled the case by paying $1.25 billion to AMD What incentive conflict was being controlled by these loyalty payments? What advice did Intel ignore when they adopted this practice (consider how the Robinson-Patman Act applies to their practice) and speculate why Intel ignored the advice.