Agree with everything here. UMG’s moves are genius … but should be scrutinized much more. I think much of their behavior is anticompetitive. But I think their market power really only affects artists instead of listeners
What I find interesting is just how they're managing to fly under the radar on the anti-competition scrutiny front, largely because I feel they've carefully ensured they don't grow *too* far in market share, whilst also maintaining all these strategic partnerships that basically ensure that whatever Universals says, goes.
Given most market regulatory bodies look at market share as a means to measure a monopoly, that's incredibly smart.
Put another way: I'm not sure any market power investigation could do much, because "influence" and "market share" are not the same things. It's fiendishly clever.
I feel like the other thing is that there’s not really consumer harm. Music is cheaper than it’s ever been. The only possible argument you could make would be on the label or artist side which I feel like is harder to drum up public support for
Agree, 100%. I don't feel there's enough sympathy for artists, and that whole side can quickly get derailed when companies like Spotify make all kinds of claims about what it is paying out (something I notice Damon Krukowski has covered in his latest post).
Agree with everything here. UMG’s moves are genius … but should be scrutinized much more. I think much of their behavior is anticompetitive. But I think their market power really only affects artists instead of listeners
What I find interesting is just how they're managing to fly under the radar on the anti-competition scrutiny front, largely because I feel they've carefully ensured they don't grow *too* far in market share, whilst also maintaining all these strategic partnerships that basically ensure that whatever Universals says, goes.
Given most market regulatory bodies look at market share as a means to measure a monopoly, that's incredibly smart.
Put another way: I'm not sure any market power investigation could do much, because "influence" and "market share" are not the same things. It's fiendishly clever.
I feel like the other thing is that there’s not really consumer harm. Music is cheaper than it’s ever been. The only possible argument you could make would be on the label or artist side which I feel like is harder to drum up public support for
Agree, 100%. I don't feel there's enough sympathy for artists, and that whole side can quickly get derailed when companies like Spotify make all kinds of claims about what it is paying out (something I notice Damon Krukowski has covered in his latest post).