3 ms·

Care to be more precise? This has been done before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system, https://en.wikipedi

Care to be more precise? This has been done before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....), and the results have been universally positive. More generally: yes, close government intervention is needed maintain a healthy market, no, free markets don't spring up spontaneously.

scarface74 4y ago
Yes this was done when the only method to distribute movies was through a limited number of theaters. Now there is no monopoly on distributing media. Also, video and audio recording and editing equipment was expensive. Now many people carry around a device capable of recording 4K video in their pocket and can get video and audio editing equipment free that producers could only dream of when those cases were adjudicated. With the plethora of streaming services, there is no “monopoly”. Do you also think we should apply rules to automobiles that were relevant to horses?
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  No one is claiming there is a monopoly. The vertical integration between content producers and distributors means that pricing is based off exclusivity rather than the fair market value of the service and goods being provided. We claim to live in a market-driven economy, so we should put rules in place that live up to those values.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    A market driven economy means there is plenty of competition between Netflix, Disney, Peacock+, AppleTV, Amazon PrimeTV, Paramount+, Discovery+/HBO Max etc to deliver content that can convince people to pay.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      But there is less competition that if you break up vertical monopolies of content+distribution, that's the point. Content producers must compete on content, and distributors must compete on distribution.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. How is it a “monopoly” when there are more than half a dozen players. A “vertical monopoly” is another HN fiction. Are all game console makers a “monopoly”? Shouid the local TV stations not be allowed to produce news only on their channels? Should ESPN not be allowed to produce “ESPN Tonight”? Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content.
        e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
        > So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. You're missing the point. The proposal is to split competition in the single integrated market of content+distribution into two separate markets, one for content and a separate one for distribution. The point is that by bundling the two of them together you're reducing competition, because just by simple mathematics there are fewer companies capable of both compared to companies that specialise in one. Content production is a hard industry, so is distribution. > Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? The proposal is that distributors will have to split their business into two independent businesses. If there's a local news channel, then it gets split into a local news producer and a general distributor that also distributes other things. The internet has already done that for the most part though, it used to be that newspapers were the exclusive distributors and thus could maintain a local monopoly on local news. The internet swept that away and now anybody could get local news from anywhere else on earth. The linked article is lamenting that the trend is reversing, such that distributors are once again the same people as the content producers. > Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content. That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits.

scarface74 4y ago

Yes this was done when the only method to distribute movies was through a limited number of theaters. Now there is no monopoly on distributing media. Also, video and audio recording and editing equipment was expensive. Now many people carry around a device capable of recording 4K video in their pocket and can get video and audio editing equipment free that producers could only dream of when those cases were adjudicated. With the plethora of streaming services, there is no “monopoly”. Do you also think we should apply rules to automobiles that were relevant to horses?

arrosenberg 4y ago
No one is claiming there is a monopoly. The vertical integration between content producers and distributors means that pricing is based off exclusivity rather than the fair market value of the service and goods being provided. We claim to live in a market-driven economy, so we should put rules in place that live up to those values.
- scarface74 4y ago
  A market driven economy means there is plenty of competition between Netflix, Disney, Peacock+, AppleTV, Amazon PrimeTV, Paramount+, Discovery+/HBO Max etc to deliver content that can convince people to pay.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    But there is less competition that if you break up vertical monopolies of content+distribution, that's the point. Content producers must compete on content, and distributors must compete on distribution.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. How is it a “monopoly” when there are more than half a dozen players. A “vertical monopoly” is another HN fiction. Are all game console makers a “monopoly”? Shouid the local TV stations not be allowed to produce news only on their channels? Should ESPN not be allowed to produce “ESPN Tonight”? Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content.
      - e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
        > So the government should step in because there is not enough competition with eight+ streaming services? They are already competing to get content deals from producers and studios. You're missing the point. The proposal is to split competition in the single integrated market of content+distribution into two separate markets, one for content and a separate one for distribution. The point is that by bundling the two of them together you're reducing competition, because just by simple mathematics there are fewer companies capable of both compared to companies that specialise in one. Content production is a hard industry, so is distribution. > Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows? The proposal is that distributors will have to split their business into two independent businesses. If there's a local news channel, then it gets split into a local news producer and a general distributor that also distributes other things. The internet has already done that for the most part though, it used to be that newspapers were the exclusive distributors and thus could maintain a local monopoly on local news. The internet swept that away and now anybody could get local news from anywhere else on earth. The linked article is lamenting that the trend is reversing, such that distributors are once again the same people as the content producers. > Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content. That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits.