4 ms·
But monopolies are not illegal. Violating antitrust law is illegal. --- You don't violate federal law just by being the only company to sell canine banana ha
by paulddraper 2y ago
But monopolies are not illegal.
Violating antitrust law is illegal.
---
You don't violate federal law just by being the only company to sell canine banana hammocks.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y agoI agree that is what is the law is and even that that is what the law should be. It is also important to note however that the actual title of the Sherman Antitrust Act is "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." So it isn't fair to say that anti-competitive practices and monopolies are completely orthogonal (although strictly speaking they are) because monopolies are a perfect tool with which to engage in anti-competitive practices. In my opinion I don't think protecting entertainment from anti-competitive practices even matters that much anyway though. Your ability to watch your favorite singer live is really not the same as something like oil or trains which are actually important to the economy.
- paulddraper 2y agoYour quote itself presents the question of lawful monopoly vs unlawful monopoly.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y agoI don't think I implied otherwise.
- EasyMark 2y agoAre you arguing that they aren't hurting consumers? Just look at ticket prices over the years as more and more competition was eliminated, as well as the tactics they use to control artists. You aren't going to have much luck I suspect.
- paulddraper 2y agoNo. I am pointing out that being a monopoly (i.e. the only business choosing to offer a product/service) is not illegal. Engaging in anticompetive behavior is illegal. And the Justice Dept has accused Ticketmaster of doing that.
- Loughla 2y agoI was just looking at that last night. [Artist that was super popular in 2006ish] tickets when we went at the absolute height of his popularity were $40 for lawn seats at a local venue [Same artist] at the same venue in the same lawn seating is now $380. What's the difference? Guess who bought the venue.
- pwarner 2y agoDon't forget 2024 you probably has a much higher disposable income than 2006 you... And might be willing to pay to feel young again for a few hours. Off to buy some late 90s band tickets!
- bear141 2y agoWow. This hurts.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago> What's the difference? Disposable income of target audience. Greater number of people in target audience. Fewer shows. Technology enabling more accurate pricing so each customer is able to be targeted to pay as much as they can afford (price discrimination). Etc.
- Aunche 2y agoAlso, artists can no longer make money by selling music, so the majority of their income comes from performances now.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
- ineedaj0b 2y agotechnically you are correct but this isn't a thread of lawyers/attorneys, this is a thread with higher than average autism. Cleaving words and being clever with 'harmless' misdirection and turn of phrase is not welcome.
- dclowd9901 2y agoIf LiveNation/TicketMaster aren’t violating antitrust law, there is no antitrust law.
- 0xcde4c3db 2y agoAs I understand it, a wrinkle with this distinction is that having a monopoly through sheer competitive goodness isn't illegal, but actively trying to construct a monopoly almost always is illegal. And with the benefit of hindsight, I don't see how Ticketmaster's acquisition of Live Nation can be construed in good faith as anything but the latter.