5 ms·

Amazon in talks to buy MGM for $9bn

30 points by nixass 5y ago

littlecranky67 5y ago
Please, please, please regulators, don't allow them. It is obvious that they want exclusive content for Amazon VoD, and this kind of plattform exclusive content is harmful to the users. For a working market, it is important to separate content producers/IP holders from the plattforms so they arrange for license deals.
- Traster 5y ago
  I think that's a pretty difficult argument to make. Why can Disney do this, but Amazon can't. Why can Netflix do this, but Amazon can't. Why can ViacomCBS do it with Paramount+ but Amaozn can't? Almost the entire history of content production has involved vertical integration.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    Disney absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to get as big as it has now. Their weight in the industry is so great that they bend the space-time of copyright laws to fit their agenda.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    None of those other acquisitions should’ve been allowed either
  - kalleboo 5y ago
    > Almost the entire history of content production has involved vertical integration Indeed, history repeats itself. Once all content is locked into silos, we may find ourselves here again: The 1948 Paramount Decision was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Supreme Court affirmed (a District Court's ruling) in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of United States antitrust law, which prohibits certain exclusive dealing arrangements. Paramount Pictures Inc. was forced to split into two companies: the film company Paramount Pictures Corp. and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      I genuinely can't imagine the government doing something like this today
      - littlecranky67 5y ago
        Why not? My hopes (as a European) are that the US will split up the large FAANGs to restore a fair and working market again. The US had several split ups forced by antitrust regulations in the past (Standard Oil, AT&T) and I sincerely hope they go back to this kind of market intervention policy.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gelob 5y ago
    Netflix paved their own way. They didn't just buy up some company
- Joakal 5y ago
  Want to boost IP creation by creators and make distributors beg? Have copyright return to creators after 20 or so years after they've been transferred via whatever contracts. Lots of renegotiations will mean lots of money for Picassos! After all, everyone says the aim of stronger copyright laws is to protect "creators" (those same laws that implement near perpetual copyright terms, extraditions, $100k+ fine and 5+ years jail that can easily be applied such as sharing a picture to your parents)
  - sombremesa 5y ago
    Sometimes it amazes me how naive some people are. All this will accomplish is that contracts will then include a waiver of this right.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      There are rights that cannot be waived. Ultimately it's law, not contracts, that is supreme. Although this is under attack, such as the proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses, and the unwillingness of courts to invalidate them.
      - sombremesa 5y ago
        This is not so much a waiver of a right than a transfer. As such, I know of no instance where transfer of ownership like this has been made illegal insofar as the ownership itself is not in doubt.
        MikeUt 5y ago
        A 'transfer' means the party the rights were transferred from no longer has them, so from their point of view, it's not much different than a waiver. And there are numerous rights that cannot be transferred or waived. For example, California limits non-competes. For a closer example, there are moral rights to copyright, that in many jurisdictions cannot be sold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
sodality2 5y ago
This URL forces me to consent to data collection. Remove the uk, and it becomes viewable: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-mgm-takeover-talks-james-bond-streaming-074855442.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-mgm-takeover-talks-jam...
- DarkStar851 5y ago
  GDPR compliance, if you remove "uk" from the URL they just don't ask first :)
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Javascript is disabled for me so they can take whatever they find, won't be much based just on my HTTP headers... The popup still blocked the article without JS and the article isn't even loaded in behind it (otherwise I'd zap the popup element)

30 points by nixass 5y ago

Please, please, please regulators, don't allow them. It is obvious that they want exclusive content for Amazon VoD, and this kind of plattform exclusive content is harmful to the users. For a working market, it is important to separate content producers/IP holders from the plattforms so they arrange for license deals.

Traster 5y ago
I think that's a pretty difficult argument to make. Why can Disney do this, but Amazon can't. Why can Netflix do this, but Amazon can't. Why can ViacomCBS do it with Paramount+ but Amaozn can't? Almost the entire history of content production has involved vertical integration.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  Disney absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to get as big as it has now. Their weight in the industry is so great that they bend the space-time of copyright laws to fit their agenda.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  None of those other acquisitions should’ve been allowed either
- kalleboo 5y ago
  > Almost the entire history of content production has involved vertical integration Indeed, history repeats itself. Once all content is locked into silos, we may find ourselves here again: The 1948 Paramount Decision was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Supreme Court affirmed (a District Court's ruling) in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of United States antitrust law, which prohibits certain exclusive dealing arrangements. Paramount Pictures Inc. was forced to split into two companies: the film company Paramount Pictures Corp. and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    I genuinely can't imagine the government doing something like this today
    - littlecranky67 5y ago
      Why not? My hopes (as a European) are that the US will split up the large FAANGs to restore a fair and working market again. The US had several split ups forced by antitrust regulations in the past (Standard Oil, AT&T) and I sincerely hope they go back to this kind of market intervention policy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Gelob 5y ago
  Netflix paved their own way. They didn't just buy up some company
Joakal 5y ago
Want to boost IP creation by creators and make distributors beg? Have copyright return to creators after 20 or so years after they've been transferred via whatever contracts. Lots of renegotiations will mean lots of money for Picassos! After all, everyone says the aim of stronger copyright laws is to protect "creators" (those same laws that implement near perpetual copyright terms, extraditions, $100k+ fine and 5+ years jail that can easily be applied such as sharing a picture to your parents)
- sombremesa 5y ago
  Sometimes it amazes me how naive some people are. All this will accomplish is that contracts will then include a waiver of this right.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    There are rights that cannot be waived. Ultimately it's law, not contracts, that is supreme. Although this is under attack, such as the proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses, and the unwillingness of courts to invalidate them.
    - sombremesa 5y ago
      This is not so much a waiver of a right than a transfer. As such, I know of no instance where transfer of ownership like this has been made illegal insofar as the ownership itself is not in doubt.
      - MikeUt 5y ago
        A 'transfer' means the party the rights were transferred from no longer has them, so from their point of view, it's not much different than a waiver. And there are numerous rights that cannot be transferred or waived. For example, California limits non-competes. For a closer example, there are moral rights to copyright, that in many jurisdictions cannot be sold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

sodality2 5y ago

This URL forces me to consent to data collection. Remove the uk, and it becomes viewable: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-mgm-takeover-talks-james-bond-streaming-074855442.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-mgm-takeover-talks-jam...

DarkStar851 5y ago
GDPR compliance, if you remove "uk" from the URL they just don't ask first :)
- sodality2 5y ago
  Javascript is disabled for me so they can take whatever they find, won't be much based just on my HTTP headers... The popup still blocked the article without JS and the article isn't even loaded in behind it (otherwise I'd zap the popup element)