3 ms·

I agree with the stance that, yes, they are free to do what they want, but only to a degree. The closest historical parallel would probably be the Paramount cas

by TheGRS 8y ago

I agree with the stance that, yes, they are free to do what they want, but only to a degree. The closest historical parallel would probably be the Paramount case that completely changed the cinema landscape from studios owning and operating their own cinemas that only showed the films from their own studio to breaking up these cinemas from the studios and allowing them to show films from whoever they want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... But unfortunately the appetite in this country for anti-trust litigation has almost completely dried up at this point.

linuxftw 8y ago
How is this any different than Old Navy selling only their branded clothing? Or Tesla dealerships (if they can be called that) selling only Teslas? IMO, when strictly speaking about content, there should be zero regulation in regards to whom can own and license content to whom.
- basch 8y ago
  I think the debate is "you can only watch this if you have ATT 5G or ATT DSL." The latter is a literal government granted monopoly, I dont have the option to buy multiple DSL and multiple Cable subscriptions. The former is just so silly, to have major content be exclusive to a mobile provider. Do they honestly expect me to sign up for ATT and Verizon and Sprint/TMobile? Should some of the government regulation, protecting ISPs from geographic competitors, include a social contract of sorts agreeing not to own content production? Or do you pass laws forcing them to resell the last mile to competitors at fair market rates?
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    My vote is to get rid of the 'literal government granted monopoly' which created the problem in the first place.
- TheGRS 8y ago
  Its probably worth reading about Rockefeller and some of the reasons we began to enforce anti-trust laws in the first place. What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one. Huge corporations often find themselves in the position of improving profit not by offering better products, but by snuffing out their competitors. Often nefariously. Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company. Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier. He was literally making Standard Oil the only game in town. Anti-competition is not in our best interest as Americans. And I'm not saying content providers are going to employ the same tactics as Rockefeller did, but its not hard to see how if you controlled a substantial amount of capital in the entertainment industry, maybe you can blacklist actors who decide to go do a show on Netflix. Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO. We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    > What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one. Who's this we business? Turn of the 20th century politicians? > Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company. And were those railroads forced to take that deal? Economies of scale. Sounds similar to how Walmart is able to use their buying power to force down prices from their suppliers. "Raise prices for others" is the same as "Lower prices for me." > Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier. Similar to how Walmart and now Amazon have their own shipping services as well (Walmart does their own back-haul). > Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO I'm pretty sure this is already a thing? You can create all sorts of contracts around non-compete. > We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior. I want exactly this behavior. Hopefully we can cut out more middle people and have more direct-to-consumer purchasing model.

by TheGRS 8y ago

linuxftw 8y ago

How is this any different than Old Navy selling only their branded clothing? Or Tesla dealerships (if they can be called that) selling only Teslas? IMO, when strictly speaking about content, there should be zero regulation in regards to whom can own and license content to whom.

basch 8y ago
I think the debate is "you can only watch this if you have ATT 5G or ATT DSL." The latter is a literal government granted monopoly, I dont have the option to buy multiple DSL and multiple Cable subscriptions. The former is just so silly, to have major content be exclusive to a mobile provider. Do they honestly expect me to sign up for ATT and Verizon and Sprint/TMobile? Should some of the government regulation, protecting ISPs from geographic competitors, include a social contract of sorts agreeing not to own content production? Or do you pass laws forcing them to resell the last mile to competitors at fair market rates?
- linuxftw 8y ago
  My vote is to get rid of the 'literal government granted monopoly' which created the problem in the first place.
TheGRS 8y ago
Its probably worth reading about Rockefeller and some of the reasons we began to enforce anti-trust laws in the first place. What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one. Huge corporations often find themselves in the position of improving profit not by offering better products, but by snuffing out their competitors. Often nefariously. Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company. Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier. He was literally making Standard Oil the only game in town. Anti-competition is not in our best interest as Americans. And I'm not saying content providers are going to employ the same tactics as Rockefeller did, but its not hard to see how if you controlled a substantial amount of capital in the entertainment industry, maybe you can blacklist actors who decide to go do a show on Netflix. Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO. We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  > What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one. Who's this we business? Turn of the 20th century politicians? > Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company. And were those railroads forced to take that deal? Economies of scale. Sounds similar to how Walmart is able to use their buying power to force down prices from their suppliers. "Raise prices for others" is the same as "Lower prices for me." > Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier. Similar to how Walmart and now Amazon have their own shipping services as well (Walmart does their own back-haul). > Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO I'm pretty sure this is already a thing? You can create all sorts of contracts around non-compete. > We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior. I want exactly this behavior. Hopefully we can cut out more middle people and have more direct-to-consumer purchasing model.