4 ms·

I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, y

I would suggest that a pre-recorded performance is inherently more fungible. If movie theater A is going to charge you a $20 fee when you get to the theater, you can just go to theater B later and see the same show. If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show.

betterThanTexas 1y ago
Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.
- rtpg 1y ago
  The best faith thing I can think of here is that these rules are requiring that live events do much more than "just" display the full price. For example in ads they _must_ show the all inclusive price. An example of a thing that movie theaters can do that live event shows can no longer do is say "a ticket costs $14", while in reality there's a booking fee to cover card payments if you pay online, but you can walk into a movie theater and pay just $14. I think the FTC is saying that while there might be good faith reasons to have booking fees, the industry clearly is using this stuff in bad faith so the industry no longer has this sort of good faith "out" to simplify messaging on pricing.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  The live event people are far more odious and abusive. They operate monopolies, but modern American law has been perverted to be unable to recognize that.
yellowapple 1y ago
This works until Theater A signs an exclusivity deal with the publisher of that pre-recorded performance, such that going to Theater B to see the same show is not possible because Theater B is not legally permitted to show it. Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), but not unheard of (for example: films made specifically for IMAX's fancy setups).
- toast0 1y ago
  > Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), Well, also there was US v. Paramount Pictures [1], which prohibited film production companies from showing their films exclusively at their owned theaters. And follow-on rulings like Bigelow vs RKO Radio Pictures [2], that more or less established that distributing films preferentially is also unacceptable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures%2C_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures,....
  - jfengel 1y ago
    The consent decree from US v Paramount actually expired a couple of years ago. Not sure how that affects the other rulings.
gruez 1y ago
>If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show. Isn't that an argument for stronger disclosure laws for pre-recorded performances? If there's a monopoly, deceptive pricing wouldn't do much because the monopolist is still your only choice. but if it's a competitive marketplace, deceptive pricing might actually lead to consumers choosing worse providers.
- tomrod 1y ago
  There is also an element of repeated games and reputation of the provider.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

betterThanTexas 1y ago

Ok, so why is the government endorsing hidden fees for fungible products? There is no situation where this benefits anyone but shareholders.

rtpg 1y ago
The best faith thing I can think of here is that these rules are requiring that live events do much more than "just" display the full price. For example in ads they _must_ show the all inclusive price. An example of a thing that movie theaters can do that live event shows can no longer do is say "a ticket costs $14", while in reality there's a booking fee to cover card payments if you pay online, but you can walk into a movie theater and pay just $14. I think the FTC is saying that while there might be good faith reasons to have booking fees, the industry clearly is using this stuff in bad faith so the industry no longer has this sort of good faith "out" to simplify messaging on pricing.
Spooky23 1y ago
The live event people are far more odious and abusive. They operate monopolies, but modern American law has been perverted to be unable to recognize that.

yellowapple 1y ago

This works until Theater A signs an exclusivity deal with the publisher of that pre-recorded performance, such that going to Theater B to see the same show is not possible because Theater B is not legally permitted to show it. Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), but not unheard of (for example: films made specifically for IMAX's fancy setups).

toast0 1y ago
> Granted, such exclusivity deals are rare (because generally publishers want to maximize their revenue rather than artificially constrain it), Well, also there was US v. Paramount Pictures [1], which prohibited film production companies from showing their films exclusively at their owned theaters. And follow-on rulings like Bigelow vs RKO Radio Pictures [2], that more or less established that distributing films preferentially is also unacceptable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures%2C_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures,....
- jfengel 1y ago
  The consent decree from US v Paramount actually expired a couple of years ago. Not sure how that affects the other rulings.

gruez 1y ago

>If you're trying to see the single Chicago date of Tropical Fu Dogs' Coconut Cream tour, well, you either pay the fee or you don't ever see that show. Isn't that an argument for stronger disclosure laws for pre-recorded performances? If there's a monopoly, deceptive pricing wouldn't do much because the monopolist is still your only choice. but if it's a competitive marketplace, deceptive pricing might actually lead to consumers choosing worse providers.

tomrod 1y ago
There is also an element of repeated games and reputation of the provider.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]