It was an asset deal. Should regulators really be preventing a team of people from buying up historical intellectual property? Fox put its property on the market, this wasnt a hostile takover.
"anti-trust theory, on both the diagnosis side and the remedy side, seems to be flummoxed when faced by products that are free or as cheap as possible, and that do not rely on familiar kinds of restrictive practices (the tying of Standard Oil) for their market power. The US in particular has tended to focus exclusively on price, where the EU has looked much more at competition, but neither has a good account of what exactly is wrong with Amazon"
I think this is salient...what is Disney doing (so far) to BLOCK competition?
2. I remember seeing an article on here recently that talked about how it is difficult to write down Amazon's exact offenses when their pricing algorithm is a secret.
Fortunately the wheels are starting to turn to improve the situation— Lina Khan’s article in the Yale Law Journal about Amazon’s anticompetitive behavior has been an earthquake in the law world and we may be in the early stages of shaking off the Bork madness.
Thanks for the tip, I hadn't seen it anywhere yet.
This article describes the requirements for The Last Jedi, but my understanding is that this is pretty close to the requirements for any Marvel/StarWars/Disney film at this point.
https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-requirements-to-show-...
I can kind of see demanding that kind of coverage for the first week, but for a second week you're just robbing from competing films and the theaters themselves.
Which is absolutely the point
What if Disney was a private collector and bought up all the words art, and sealed it away, or charged admission at a single museum.
People would (and will) make new movies, new art. I have a hard time seeing the justification for an overarching central control (if there even is one) policing who can own what and how much.
When laws (eg, Copyright) allow consolidation like this, the laws are probably going to hurt consumers.
We should seriously consider changing Copyright.
If they provide all the museum security, fine. But in the real world Disney relies on the US legal system to protect their collection.
That's not the question, is it? Take any monopoly from history and examine individual purchases, and they can usually be reduced to a question like yours that seems benign.
Murder isn't the act of firing a gun, it's the act of firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill them.