5 ms·

While I'm sympathetic to Netflix, I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved in deciding who should be eligible for the Academy awards.

gamblor956 8y ago
The DOJ would almost certainly lose any lawsuit they filed on this. The Academy Awards is an industry group. It has no monopoly on movie awards. Their are no fewer than 6 major movie awards during the awards seasons, and dozens of less prestigious awards. The Academy has only a monopoly on its own awards, and any interference in that would almost certainly violate the First Amendment. The Academy is within its rights to control the eligibility requirements for its awards. If Netflix doesn't like that, they can fudge off and create the Streamies, recognizing excellence in movies made for streaming services.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're right that the Academy Awards don't have a monopoly so they're unlikely to succeed by arguing the Academy is exercising market power to gain/maintain a monopoly. However, this is a group of movie producers, who are usually competitors, working together to completely exclude a new participant (and new competitor) from the market for the most significant movie award. That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation. That's very clearly not a cartel under the Sherman Act...nor is it an antitrust violation to deny them an award. An Oscar award is not a market activity, so restricting eligibility for a trade award is not a restraint of trade. Might be time to take a refresher CLE course on antitrust law?
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      A snarky attack on my professional ability is an excessive response to my offering another way of viewing the issue that your original comment had overlooked. This would be a case of first impression so no one has the answer. Not even you. I appreciate your concern and I assure you my knowledge of antitrust law is plenty fresh. But next time you're near a law library check out the Third Restatement of the Law of Unfair Competition. I helped write it.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        My apologies. I did not realize you were Prof. Denicola or Perlman of the University of Nebraska College of Law...or one of their student assistants... But my point stands. If you were involved in writing that treatise 23 years ago, you need to re-read your own research or get caught up on the case law since that 1995 treatise was published. An award is an act of speech, not an act of trade, and is not subject to antitrust laws. Especially when that award is but one of many such awards, several of which also restrict Netflix films from eligibility on the same grounds.
        elliekelly 8y ago
        Who says speech and trade are mutually exclusive? An Oscar nomination has demonstrable value in the market in the form of increased revenue. And attorneys (not students) update the Restatement annually with commentary on recent cases that clarify/change the application of the rules. But it's clear you're more interested in telling me I don't know what I'm talking about than you are in having an interesting discussion so I'll leave you to have a lovely Friday afternoon.
devmunchies 8y ago
>I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved they probably shouldn't be involved, but my guess would be lobbying from Netflix.
lostlogin 8y ago
That the awards matter that much to Netflix is surprising to me.
- gknoy 8y ago
  Awards matter to the people making the movies, and if your work for Netflix will never be eligible for an award, it may make it harder for them to recruit top talent.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Which also answers the question of why this is a legitimate subject for antitrust enforcement. It's at least as relevant as, say, drug testing in professional baseball, which Congress has certainly wasted enough time on.
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
      Congress has special oversight over baseball in exchange for it's antitrust exemption. Sometimes they have to flex that muscle.
SilasX 8y ago
For analogy, what if the top 3 gaming publications ing the 90s (when Apple was struggling) refused to review Apple-only games, in part because Apple didn't buy ads in their magazines. (Edit: The analogy is that they're not making it so you can't buy the games or the platform, but excluding it from the really credible praise.) Is that evil? Is that legitimately within the scope of antitrust? Edit: I actually don't know. I was going to agree with you until I thought of that comparison.
- tacomonstrous 8y ago
  Not sure, but that might be subject to some kind of anti-cartel regulation? But if there are 3 top gaming publications, and only one of them refused to review Apple-only games, then I don't think intervention is justified.
- TheOperator 8y ago
  I guess but it's ultimately unnessecary when the Oscars are dying without anybody else being involved. Seems like a massive waste of the Justice Departments resources with so many other problems that aren't working theirselves out. The Oscars were dethroned as the dominent movie rating platform by Rotten Tomatoes long ago. There are also worse problems than the Netflix exclusion like the rampant nepotism and the very existence of "Oscar campaigns" where you can pay your way to oscar votes from people who never ever watched your film. Happens every single year.
lostmyoldone 8y ago
Since Oscars has a marketing value, is entrenched among established producers in the field, and is perceived by the public to be open to what is considered to be a "movie", arbitrary changes to rules can certainly be seen as anti competitive practices - which many believe the government should care about. While there certainly is other industries that would need similar attention, it's kind of low hanging fruit if you change you rules in a way that right now only prohibits a single company from entering. Especially when it's one many of the incumbents said colloquially, "Seems to have some beef with."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gamblor956 8y ago

The DOJ would almost certainly lose any lawsuit they filed on this. The Academy Awards is an industry group. It has no monopoly on movie awards. Their are no fewer than 6 major movie awards during the awards seasons, and dozens of less prestigious awards. The Academy has only a monopoly on its own awards, and any interference in that would almost certainly violate the First Amendment. The Academy is within its rights to control the eligibility requirements for its awards. If Netflix doesn't like that, they can fudge off and create the Streamies, recognizing excellence in movies made for streaming services.

elliekelly 8y ago
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're right that the Academy Awards don't have a monopoly so they're unlikely to succeed by arguing the Academy is exercising market power to gain/maintain a monopoly. However, this is a group of movie producers, who are usually competitors, working together to completely exclude a new participant (and new competitor) from the market for the most significant movie award. That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation. That's very clearly not a cartel under the Sherman Act...nor is it an antitrust violation to deny them an award. An Oscar award is not a market activity, so restricting eligibility for a trade award is not a restraint of trade. Might be time to take a refresher CLE course on antitrust law?
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    A snarky attack on my professional ability is an excessive response to my offering another way of viewing the issue that your original comment had overlooked. This would be a case of first impression so no one has the answer. Not even you. I appreciate your concern and I assure you my knowledge of antitrust law is plenty fresh. But next time you're near a law library check out the Third Restatement of the Law of Unfair Competition. I helped write it.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      My apologies. I did not realize you were Prof. Denicola or Perlman of the University of Nebraska College of Law...or one of their student assistants... But my point stands. If you were involved in writing that treatise 23 years ago, you need to re-read your own research or get caught up on the case law since that 1995 treatise was published. An award is an act of speech, not an act of trade, and is not subject to antitrust laws. Especially when that award is but one of many such awards, several of which also restrict Netflix films from eligibility on the same grounds.
      - elliekelly 8y ago
        Who says speech and trade are mutually exclusive? An Oscar nomination has demonstrable value in the market in the form of increased revenue. And attorneys (not students) update the Restatement annually with commentary on recent cases that clarify/change the application of the rules. But it's clear you're more interested in telling me I don't know what I'm talking about than you are in having an interesting discussion so I'll leave you to have a lovely Friday afternoon.

devmunchies 8y ago

>I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved they probably shouldn't be involved, but my guess would be lobbying from Netflix.

lostlogin 8y ago

That the awards matter that much to Netflix is surprising to me.

gknoy 8y ago
Awards matter to the people making the movies, and if your work for Netflix will never be eligible for an award, it may make it harder for them to recruit top talent.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Which also answers the question of why this is a legitimate subject for antitrust enforcement. It's at least as relevant as, say, drug testing in professional baseball, which Congress has certainly wasted enough time on.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Congress has special oversight over baseball in exchange for it's antitrust exemption. Sometimes they have to flex that muscle.

SilasX 8y ago

For analogy, what if the top 3 gaming publications ing the 90s (when Apple was struggling) refused to review Apple-only games, in part because Apple didn't buy ads in their magazines. (Edit: The analogy is that they're not making it so you can't buy the games or the platform, but excluding it from the really credible praise.) Is that evil? Is that legitimately within the scope of antitrust? Edit: I actually don't know. I was going to agree with you until I thought of that comparison.

tacomonstrous 8y ago
Not sure, but that might be subject to some kind of anti-cartel regulation? But if there are 3 top gaming publications, and only one of them refused to review Apple-only games, then I don't think intervention is justified.
TheOperator 8y ago
I guess but it's ultimately unnessecary when the Oscars are dying without anybody else being involved. Seems like a massive waste of the Justice Departments resources with so many other problems that aren't working theirselves out. The Oscars were dethroned as the dominent movie rating platform by Rotten Tomatoes long ago. There are also worse problems than the Netflix exclusion like the rampant nepotism and the very existence of "Oscar campaigns" where you can pay your way to oscar votes from people who never ever watched your film. Happens every single year.

lostmyoldone 8y ago

Since Oscars has a marketing value, is entrenched among established producers in the field, and is perceived by the public to be open to what is considered to be a "movie", arbitrary changes to rules can certainly be seen as anti competitive practices - which many believe the government should care about. While there certainly is other industries that would need similar attention, it's kind of low hanging fruit if you change you rules in a way that right now only prohibits a single company from entering. Especially when it's one many of the incumbents said colloquially, "Seems to have some beef with."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]