3 ms·

Spielberg's efforts are ridiculous and transparently self-serving, but how is there an anti-trust case here? Awards like this are given by private organizations

• lostmyoldone 8y ago
  I believe the issue is that Oscars is perceived in a way by the public that could make it anti competitive to exclude certain film makers, especially if rules change so they just happen to match exactly one company, one which is seen as a threat to the status quo by at least some of the incumbents. Essentially, if you claim to hold a competition open to everyone fulfilling certain criteria, and it becomes valuable due to marketing ( competition ) to participate, then you will have to accept some government scrutiny of rule changes to ensure they are not anti competitive.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• lr 8y ago
  Exactly! And it also does not stop Netflix from playing by the MPAA's rules, which have requirements for showing the film in a theatre for a given period of time. Newcomers love to throw out the "rules" (or outright knowingly facilitate the breaking of laws) that have been in place for generations, which have made industries possible and to thrive (like, in this case, the relationship between the studios, distributors, and theatre operators). Yes, times have changed, but the MPAA allowing Netflix to bypass the rules will do the same thing to movie theaters that Uber and Lyft have done to cab companies.
  • colejohnson66 8y ago
    Except Netflix is actually following the rules from what I’ve read. They’re releasing the movies in theaters for the minimum amount of time required: a week. If they wanted to make it harder for Netflix, make better rules