5 ms·
Oh, for Pete's sake. Breaking up utility or transportation companies is one thing, but this is an entertainment company - not a provider of essential societal i
by Cyberdog 9y ago
Oh, for Pete's sake. Breaking up utility or transportation companies is one thing, but this is an entertainment company - not a provider of essential societal infrastructure. And there are still plenty of other companies making movies and comics and TV shows, including other very large ones; Warner Bros, for one, and NBC/Universal, for another. Disney/ABC/Fox has nowhere near a monopoly.
- IntronExon 9y agoNowhere in antitrust law do the arbitrary distinctions you’re trying to make exist.
- Cyberdog 9y ago"Is the entity in question actually a trust/monopoly-holder" is certainly a distinction I would hope exists in law.
- IntronExon 9y agoAgreed, but that is a very different point from the one I responded to.
- Cyberdog 9y agoSo you were arguing that an entertainment company is a provider of essential societal infrastructure? I just… Even if true, Disney is still nothing near a monopoly, so this whole subthread is just silly.
- IntronExon 9y agoNo, I’m arguing that they’re monopolistic, grossly anti-competitive, and that the essential or non-essential nature of their services is another issue.
- Cyberdog 9y agoSaying that Disney is monopolistic in entertainment is like saying Ford is monopolistic in cars. Yes, they're a big player, but as I said several posts ago, there are many, many other companies you can choose from if you so wish.
- IntronExon 9y agoWhen Ford changes copyright law to protect their assets, I’ll worry about their market dominance.