14 ms·

Sane antitrust regulations should kill this deal. It is bad for everybody other than shareholders of those two companies. In particular bad for customers, othe

Sane antitrust regulations should kill this deal. It is bad for everybody other than shareholders of those two companies. In particular bad for customers, other companies and employees: https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21725552-new-research-suggests-too-little-competition-deters-investment-americas https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172555... https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are...

bovermyer 9y ago
As long as Disney can take Star Wars: ANH and X-Men licensing rights away from Fox, then fine.
- bighi 9y ago
  Yes, nobody wants good movies like Logan! Know what we need more? Mediocre movies like the ones Marvel have been making. Know what's better than a good movie? A shallow movie full of forced jokes. Now we can see the Fantastic Four facing space pirates that sleep with pacifiers in their mouths, maybe hugging teddy bears to. That would be a good movie!
  - upvotinglurker 9y ago
    The argument that seems to be espoused in this comment, and varous others[0], is that Disney only wants to make "dumbed down" traditional US-style children's / "family" movies and therefore will turn any company they buy to that purpose. Several of the hosts on pop culture/entertainment industry podcasts I listen to have said the same thing. However, it seems to me (and at least Peter Sciretta at SlashFilm Daily has expressed a similar sentiment) that this would not necessarily be Disney's strategy for Fox. As was recently pointed out on the SlashFilm podcast, Disney already has so many subsidiaries making family-friendly movies (Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, etc.) that they can hardly find enough sufficiently spaced-out weekends on the calendar to release them all. Movies like Logan, and shows like those on FX and FXX, have been critically acclaimed and financially successful. Would it make more sense for Disney to turn Fox into yet another family-friendly content company to compete with all their other family-friendly content companies that are already potentially cannibalizing each other, or use it to expand into a new adult-oriented niche with existing critically acclaimed and financially successful content? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922925
snarf21 9y ago
True, if only there was any sane anti-trust regulation in the last 20 years.
- swagtricker 9y ago
  They tried - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... The findings were 110% correct. The ultimate settled "remedy" was a joke.
DanCarvajal 9y ago
Why?
- bighi 9y ago
  Because that's what antitrust laws are for. Lack of competition is bad for consumers, bad for the economy, bad for everything... except for the owners of the monopoly.
  - longerthoughts 9y ago
    The argument they'll most likely make is that the merger will encourage competition by allowing them to compete with Netflix, Amazon, etc. in an evolving landscape that they're trying to keep up with (i.e. "if you don't let us do this, those guys are going to take over the world"). Similar arguments have been made for the AT&T/Time Warner merger and we'll see if it carries any weight when they face of with the DOJ in March. Not a perfect proxy given that one is horizontal and the other vertical, but may be a helpful indicator nonetheless.
exelius 9y ago
Disney is only interested in the creative/film assets; broadcast distribution and news/sports are being spun off.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The "big five" studios decreasing to the "big four" is not a good thing either. I feel like people have decided that because they really want an Avengers/X-Men movie (I want one too), it's okay that one of the largest companies on the planet is buying out one of their largest competitors.
  - vlunkr 9y ago
    I like Disney, obviously they make great movies, but I don’t want _everything_ to be made by Disney. Personally I think their superhero movies have gotten much too formulaic, and I’m worried for what’s going to happen to Star Wars after they keep putting them out every year. We need more creators out there trying new things, and it doesn’t help that Disney wants to collect every recognizable character.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      If Thor: Ragnarok and early reviews of The Last Jedi are any indication, though, they're not afraid to experiment and break the formula. Especially as the brand recognition increases, they've taken and are starting to take some big risks as it pertains to blockbusters. The real out-of-the-ordinary films are always going to come from studios like A24. We'll never get a 150 million art film (Blade Runner 2049 notwithstanding), but it's a little much to expect that.
  - matt-attack 9y ago
    Most consider that there are 6 “majors” in Hollywood. Disney, Fox, Warners, Paramount, and Sony. Which one did you exclude by stating there are only five?
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
calimac 9y ago
True! Hopefully they wake up to kill this deal.
friedButter 9y ago
It's entertainment. Why should anything other than being good for shareholders matter? It's not an essential goods company like say food or medicine
- lostcolony 9y ago
  It's culture. Why should a single entity have such overlarge control over the creative works that lead and inspire all of us?
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    This is the biggest problem I have. Disney already has plenty of money to lobby Congress, taking over another studio won’t change that - but we’ll be consolidating more and more IP’s that we love under a behemoth that can go wrong in so many ways.
  - friedButter 9y ago
    Then there should be provisions in the copyright law to allow the govt to suspend copyright when entertainment becomes part of the culture, similar to how some patent protections are suspended in India when a medicine is determined to be essential
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      There already is one right in the Constitution: "limited time". Originally copyright in the US only lasted 14-28 years. Copyright is supposed to expire quickly enough that important parts of culture will not be tied up by copyright.
  - WillReplyfFood 9y ago
    Well, it seems to lend itself towards monopolization for no economic reason, as can be seen at the renteers dominating scientific publications.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    To the extent culture is based on commercial dreck, it doesn’t deserve to be protected.
trisimix 9y ago
But think of the x-men mobies
- bighi 9y ago
  Now they're gonna get worse. Before that, we could at least hope to see a good movie like Logan. Now if Marvel does them, we know they're going to be mediocre like all other Marvel movies, with bad jokes every 87 seconds.
  - mathgeek 9y ago
    Everyone's definition of "good movies" differs, and that's excellent. I, for one, consider the average MCU movie to be a step above even very good movies like Logan and some of the recent X-Men titles. From a geek standpoint, I can't wait for these universes to be merged.
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      I disagree. I mean, sure I'll watch a Disney/Marvel movie, but they all their movies tend to be samey. And now DC wants to copy Marvel... All in all, I can't wait for Star Wars Episode CCXXXIV...
  - thrillgore 9y ago
    I seriously hope Disney allows the Fox brand to exist for more mature/darker properties. It would be fatiguing to keep seeing PG-13 MCU movies while Deadpool rots on the vine.
    - acjohnson55 9y ago
      I don't see why not. Look at the Netflix stuff, which is already owned by Disney/Marvel Studios.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- 9y ago
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
It's not so black and white. Stratchery posits consolidation may promote competition at the distribution layer, where Netflix presently stands to dominate: "To that end, might it be better for consumers, not-so-much today but ten years from now, if Disney were fully empowered to compete with Netflix? What is preferable? A dominant streaming company and a collection of content companies trying to escape the commoditization trap, or two dominant streaming companies that can at least try to hold each other accountable?" [1] An analog might be found in the T-Mobile/Sprint merger [2]. It is not obvious whether their consolidation would have reduced competition, by turning two options into one, or increased it, by creating a stronger number three to AT&T and Verizon. [1] https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-fox/ https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-fox/ [2] http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobile-merger-deal/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobi...
- croon 9y ago
  Well, Stratechery has been shilling for the industry for quite a while now, on most major corporate issues.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Stratechery has been shilling for the industry "Shilling" implies, perhaps to the point of requiring, monetary compensation for publishing certain views. The only people I know who pay for Stratchery use it to invest in start-ups. Maybe there is something shady going on. But reducing any argument you disagree with to shilling isn't productive discussion.
    - croon 9y ago
      > But reducing any argument you disagree with to shilling isn't productive discussion. Neither is referencing that site on issues. Disney has tried streaming before and failed, not because Netflix had locked them out of content, but because their service sucked. You can draw a parallell to Steam and all competing game market platforms for PC, they all had just as much opportunity, and a lot of them lock content only to their own platform, yet they're all worse. I don't disagree with the fact that large competing platforms are good for keeping the market competitive, but that buying and locking in content instead of providing a better service is the wrong way of going about it, when you can't compete on service. And as for Stratechery, I don't have access to their books, I can only read a pattern into their recent history of posts on the industry, and it's not good.
pdog 9y ago
Neither of the two articles even mention the Disney-21st Century Fox deal. What specifically about this deal should be of concern for antitrust regulators?
- longerthoughts 9y ago
  For one, it would give the resulting entity a majority stake in Hulu and control over a lot of content that they could potentially yank from the likes of Netflix. It's also the default position of regulators that horizontal mergers are bad for competition, so I'd expect a fight regardless of the ultimate basis [1]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/mergers https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
  - pdog 9y ago
    Is the majority stake in Hulu really an antitrust concern? Streaming services are pretty competitive and Netflix has plenty of their own exclusive content.
    - longerthoughts 9y ago
      The content ownership example that I provided is absolutely not enough to merit blocking the merger on its own, just one example of consolidated power that will likely come up in the event of a hearing.
  - dkrich 9y ago
    I think the argument that content itself comprises a monopoly is a tough sell since content is something that can be demonstrably created by lots of parties (Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Apple, NBC, YouTube, etc.). In fact in today's environment it would be nearly impossible to form a monopoly because content creation and distribution has been so democratized. If they merged with Netflix and controlled pretty much all distribution, then that might be a more compelling argument, but still difficult. It seems to me that people throw the term monopoly around way too freely. Two major content distributors in today's environment is not destroying Netflix's ability to compete. When Microsoft controlled the OS of just about every desktop in the world and wouldn't allow competition in the browser space, that was a monopoly. When Standard Oil owned every oil field in the United States and the gas stations, that was a monopoly.
chrischen 9y ago
Antitrust regulations should kill google and facebook, but they’re not. In my opinion those two are much bigger fish to fry than two movie companies.
- meebs 9y ago
  Why must it be either / or?
- bobajeff 9y ago
  I wonder what would happen if Google was divided into a bunch of smaller but cooperative regional search engines/datacenters. Would that be better or worse for competition?
  - hux_ 9y ago
    I would like that. A Google US competing against a Google Germany competing against a Google India etc for the global search market.
- dsl 9y ago
  I don't think Google has any plans to acquire Facebook, have you heard differently?
  - longerthoughts 9y ago
    I think he meant breaking up Google and Facebook respectively rather than halting a merger.
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  Every new day is a day that puts the Gilded Age to shame. I'm scared for the future.
malchow 9y ago
It seems to me that, given tech-side developments in the entertainment industry, increased density on the content side makes perfect sense. I'd be more concerned about a pair of CDNs merging than a pair of movie houses.
- dsl 9y ago
  You must live in a constant state of fear. Akamai literally buys every up and coming CDN once they gain double digit market share. Limelight is the only real holdout, Fastly hasn't been hit by the Akamai lawyers yet (which is always step 1 in their playbook), and they are waiting for Cloudflare to collapse under their own business model. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/akamai-technologies/acquisitions/acquisitions_list https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/akamai-technologies/...
  - malchow 9y ago
    Right. I'm saying that, if you care about "monopoly power in consumer home entertainment," you'd almost certainly have to rank edge network consolidation over movie studio consolidation. Judging by the number of animated logos before any current movie starts, there seem to be millions of these studios!
otakucode 9y ago
Is that ever the standard used? I don't believe the concerns of the customers, other companies, and definitely not employees are ever considered when evaluating antitrust violations. Normally they're looking at whether the marketplace would be reduced to a monopoly or whether non-insurance companies are using abusive tactics, right?
alexdoma 9y ago
King's extending the kingdom's library. This sounds like a great investment for the upcoming streaming platform. Much of 21CF content is already dubbed or subtitled. But Netflix still has the advantage of being the early pioneer, already accessible in a plethora of countries.
tanilama 9y ago
For Marvel Fanboy it might not

bovermyer 9y ago

As long as Disney can take Star Wars: ANH and X-Men licensing rights away from Fox, then fine.

bighi 9y ago
Yes, nobody wants good movies like Logan! Know what we need more? Mediocre movies like the ones Marvel have been making. Know what's better than a good movie? A shallow movie full of forced jokes. Now we can see the Fantastic Four facing space pirates that sleep with pacifiers in their mouths, maybe hugging teddy bears to. That would be a good movie!
- upvotinglurker 9y ago
  The argument that seems to be espoused in this comment, and varous others[0], is that Disney only wants to make "dumbed down" traditional US-style children's / "family" movies and therefore will turn any company they buy to that purpose. Several of the hosts on pop culture/entertainment industry podcasts I listen to have said the same thing. However, it seems to me (and at least Peter Sciretta at SlashFilm Daily has expressed a similar sentiment) that this would not necessarily be Disney's strategy for Fox. As was recently pointed out on the SlashFilm podcast, Disney already has so many subsidiaries making family-friendly movies (Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, etc.) that they can hardly find enough sufficiently spaced-out weekends on the calendar to release them all. Movies like Logan, and shows like those on FX and FXX, have been critically acclaimed and financially successful. Would it make more sense for Disney to turn Fox into yet another family-friendly content company to compete with all their other family-friendly content companies that are already potentially cannibalizing each other, or use it to expand into a new adult-oriented niche with existing critically acclaimed and financially successful content? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922925

snarf21 9y ago

True, if only there was any sane anti-trust regulation in the last 20 years.

swagtricker 9y ago
They tried - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... The findings were 110% correct. The ultimate settled "remedy" was a joke.

DanCarvajal 9y ago

Why?

bighi 9y ago
Because that's what antitrust laws are for. Lack of competition is bad for consumers, bad for the economy, bad for everything... except for the owners of the monopoly.
- longerthoughts 9y ago
  The argument they'll most likely make is that the merger will encourage competition by allowing them to compete with Netflix, Amazon, etc. in an evolving landscape that they're trying to keep up with (i.e. "if you don't let us do this, those guys are going to take over the world"). Similar arguments have been made for the AT&T/Time Warner merger and we'll see if it carries any weight when they face of with the DOJ in March. Not a perfect proxy given that one is horizontal and the other vertical, but may be a helpful indicator nonetheless.

exelius 9y ago

Disney is only interested in the creative/film assets; broadcast distribution and news/sports are being spun off.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
The "big five" studios decreasing to the "big four" is not a good thing either. I feel like people have decided that because they really want an Avengers/X-Men movie (I want one too), it's okay that one of the largest companies on the planet is buying out one of their largest competitors.
- vlunkr 9y ago
  I like Disney, obviously they make great movies, but I don’t want _everything_ to be made by Disney. Personally I think their superhero movies have gotten much too formulaic, and I’m worried for what’s going to happen to Star Wars after they keep putting them out every year. We need more creators out there trying new things, and it doesn’t help that Disney wants to collect every recognizable character.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    If Thor: Ragnarok and early reviews of The Last Jedi are any indication, though, they're not afraid to experiment and break the formula. Especially as the brand recognition increases, they've taken and are starting to take some big risks as it pertains to blockbusters. The real out-of-the-ordinary films are always going to come from studios like A24. We'll never get a 150 million art film (Blade Runner 2049 notwithstanding), but it's a little much to expect that.
- matt-attack 9y ago
  Most consider that there are 6 “majors” in Hollywood. Disney, Fox, Warners, Paramount, and Sony. Which one did you exclude by stating there are only five?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago

calimac 9y ago

True! Hopefully they wake up to kill this deal.

friedButter 9y ago

It's entertainment. Why should anything other than being good for shareholders matter? It's not an essential goods company like say food or medicine

lostcolony 9y ago
It's culture. Why should a single entity have such overlarge control over the creative works that lead and inspire all of us?
- snuxoll 9y ago
  This is the biggest problem I have. Disney already has plenty of money to lobby Congress, taking over another studio won’t change that - but we’ll be consolidating more and more IP’s that we love under a behemoth that can go wrong in so many ways.
- friedButter 9y ago
  Then there should be provisions in the copyright law to allow the govt to suspend copyright when entertainment becomes part of the culture, similar to how some patent protections are suspended in India when a medicine is determined to be essential
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    There already is one right in the Constitution: "limited time". Originally copyright in the US only lasted 14-28 years. Copyright is supposed to expire quickly enough that important parts of culture will not be tied up by copyright.
- WillReplyfFood 9y ago
  Well, it seems to lend itself towards monopolization for no economic reason, as can be seen at the renteers dominating scientific publications.
- rayiner 9y ago
  To the extent culture is based on commercial dreck, it doesn’t deserve to be protected.

trisimix 9y ago

But think of the x-men mobies

bighi 9y ago
Now they're gonna get worse. Before that, we could at least hope to see a good movie like Logan. Now if Marvel does them, we know they're going to be mediocre like all other Marvel movies, with bad jokes every 87 seconds.
- mathgeek 9y ago
  Everyone's definition of "good movies" differs, and that's excellent. I, for one, consider the average MCU movie to be a step above even very good movies like Logan and some of the recent X-Men titles. From a geek standpoint, I can't wait for these universes to be merged.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    I disagree. I mean, sure I'll watch a Disney/Marvel movie, but they all their movies tend to be samey. And now DC wants to copy Marvel... All in all, I can't wait for Star Wars Episode CCXXXIV...
- thrillgore 9y ago
  I seriously hope Disney allows the Fox brand to exist for more mature/darker properties. It would be fatiguing to keep seeing PG-13 MCU movies while Deadpool rots on the vine.
  - acjohnson55 9y ago
    I don't see why not. Look at the Netflix stuff, which is already owned by Disney/Marvel Studios.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

It's not so black and white. Stratchery posits consolidation may promote competition at the distribution layer, where Netflix presently stands to dominate: "To that end, might it be better for consumers, not-so-much today but ten years from now, if Disney were fully empowered to compete with Netflix? What is preferable? A dominant streaming company and a collection of content companies trying to escape the commoditization trap, or two dominant streaming companies that can at least try to hold each other accountable?" [1] An analog might be found in the T-Mobile/Sprint merger [2]. It is not obvious whether their consolidation would have reduced competition, by turning two options into one, or increased it, by creating a stronger number three to AT&T and Verizon. [1] https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-fox/ https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-fox/ [2] http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobile-merger-deal/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobi...

croon 9y ago
Well, Stratechery has been shilling for the industry for quite a while now, on most major corporate issues.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Stratechery has been shilling for the industry "Shilling" implies, perhaps to the point of requiring, monetary compensation for publishing certain views. The only people I know who pay for Stratchery use it to invest in start-ups. Maybe there is something shady going on. But reducing any argument you disagree with to shilling isn't productive discussion.
  - croon 9y ago
    > But reducing any argument you disagree with to shilling isn't productive discussion. Neither is referencing that site on issues. Disney has tried streaming before and failed, not because Netflix had locked them out of content, but because their service sucked. You can draw a parallell to Steam and all competing game market platforms for PC, they all had just as much opportunity, and a lot of them lock content only to their own platform, yet they're all worse. I don't disagree with the fact that large competing platforms are good for keeping the market competitive, but that buying and locking in content instead of providing a better service is the wrong way of going about it, when you can't compete on service. And as for Stratechery, I don't have access to their books, I can only read a pattern into their recent history of posts on the industry, and it's not good.

pdog 9y ago

Neither of the two articles even mention the Disney-21st Century Fox deal. What specifically about this deal should be of concern for antitrust regulators?

longerthoughts 9y ago
For one, it would give the resulting entity a majority stake in Hulu and control over a lot of content that they could potentially yank from the likes of Netflix. It's also the default position of regulators that horizontal mergers are bad for competition, so I'd expect a fight regardless of the ultimate basis [1]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/mergers https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- pdog 9y ago
  Is the majority stake in Hulu really an antitrust concern? Streaming services are pretty competitive and Netflix has plenty of their own exclusive content.
  - longerthoughts 9y ago
    The content ownership example that I provided is absolutely not enough to merit blocking the merger on its own, just one example of consolidated power that will likely come up in the event of a hearing.
- dkrich 9y ago
  I think the argument that content itself comprises a monopoly is a tough sell since content is something that can be demonstrably created by lots of parties (Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Apple, NBC, YouTube, etc.). In fact in today's environment it would be nearly impossible to form a monopoly because content creation and distribution has been so democratized. If they merged with Netflix and controlled pretty much all distribution, then that might be a more compelling argument, but still difficult. It seems to me that people throw the term monopoly around way too freely. Two major content distributors in today's environment is not destroying Netflix's ability to compete. When Microsoft controlled the OS of just about every desktop in the world and wouldn't allow competition in the browser space, that was a monopoly. When Standard Oil owned every oil field in the United States and the gas stations, that was a monopoly.

chrischen 9y ago

Antitrust regulations should kill google and facebook, but they’re not. In my opinion those two are much bigger fish to fry than two movie companies.

meebs 9y ago
Why must it be either / or?
bobajeff 9y ago
I wonder what would happen if Google was divided into a bunch of smaller but cooperative regional search engines/datacenters. Would that be better or worse for competition?
- hux_ 9y ago
  I would like that. A Google US competing against a Google Germany competing against a Google India etc for the global search market.
dsl 9y ago
I don't think Google has any plans to acquire Facebook, have you heard differently?
- longerthoughts 9y ago
  I think he meant breaking up Google and Facebook respectively rather than halting a merger.
Dirlewanger 9y ago
Every new day is a day that puts the Gilded Age to shame. I'm scared for the future.

malchow 9y ago

It seems to me that, given tech-side developments in the entertainment industry, increased density on the content side makes perfect sense. I'd be more concerned about a pair of CDNs merging than a pair of movie houses.

dsl 9y ago
You must live in a constant state of fear. Akamai literally buys every up and coming CDN once they gain double digit market share. Limelight is the only real holdout, Fastly hasn't been hit by the Akamai lawyers yet (which is always step 1 in their playbook), and they are waiting for Cloudflare to collapse under their own business model. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/akamai-technologies/acquisitions/acquisitions_list https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/akamai-technologies/...
- malchow 9y ago
  Right. I'm saying that, if you care about "monopoly power in consumer home entertainment," you'd almost certainly have to rank edge network consolidation over movie studio consolidation. Judging by the number of animated logos before any current movie starts, there seem to be millions of these studios!

otakucode 9y ago

Is that ever the standard used? I don't believe the concerns of the customers, other companies, and definitely not employees are ever considered when evaluating antitrust violations. Normally they're looking at whether the marketplace would be reduced to a monopoly or whether non-insurance companies are using abusive tactics, right?

alexdoma 9y ago

King's extending the kingdom's library. This sounds like a great investment for the upcoming streaming platform. Much of 21CF content is already dubbed or subtitled. But Netflix still has the advantage of being the early pioneer, already accessible in a plethora of countries.

tanilama 9y ago

For Marvel Fanboy it might not