Justice Department To Abolish Movie Distribution Rules Dating To 1949 (reuters.com) 141
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Justice Department said on Monday that it planned to overturn antitrust-related movie distribution rules from the early days of Hollywood (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), citing an entertainment landscape that has been radically reshaped by technology. "We cannot pretend that the business of film distribution and exhibition remains the same," Makan Delrahim, the antitrust chief at the Justice Department, said at an American Bar Association conference in Washington. "Changes over the course of more than half a century also have made it unlikely that the remaining defendants can reinstate their cartel."
The film distribution rules, known as the Paramount consent decrees, were enacted in 1949, a year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that Hollywood's eight largest studios could not own theaters, and thus control the film business. The regulations made it illegal for studios to unreasonably limit the number of theaters in one geographical area that could play a movie. They also banned "block booking," a bundling practice where studios forced theaters to play their bad movies along with their good ones or not play any. But that was when "metropolitan areas generally had a single movie theater with one screen that showed a single movie at a time," Mr. Delrahim said. "Today, not only do our metropolitan areas have many multiplex cinemas showing films from different distributors, but much of our movie-watching is not in theaters at all." In essence, he was saying that the regulations are obsolete because of technological advancements, most recently streaming. The National Association of Theater Owners said that abolishing the consent decrees could result in a return to block booking, which many smaller theater owners could not survive.
"If distributors can engage in block booking, exhibitors may be forced to pack their screens with global tentpoles at the expense of targeted programming," the association said in its submitted comments, referring to blockbuster films that now dominate the box office. "Consumers will face increasingly limited choices at the box office, and, without the possibility of a theatrical run, many films will no longer be made, limiting the availability of choices through home entertainment platforms as well."
The film distribution rules, known as the Paramount consent decrees, were enacted in 1949, a year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that Hollywood's eight largest studios could not own theaters, and thus control the film business. The regulations made it illegal for studios to unreasonably limit the number of theaters in one geographical area that could play a movie. They also banned "block booking," a bundling practice where studios forced theaters to play their bad movies along with their good ones or not play any. But that was when "metropolitan areas generally had a single movie theater with one screen that showed a single movie at a time," Mr. Delrahim said. "Today, not only do our metropolitan areas have many multiplex cinemas showing films from different distributors, but much of our movie-watching is not in theaters at all." In essence, he was saying that the regulations are obsolete because of technological advancements, most recently streaming. The National Association of Theater Owners said that abolishing the consent decrees could result in a return to block booking, which many smaller theater owners could not survive.
"If distributors can engage in block booking, exhibitors may be forced to pack their screens with global tentpoles at the expense of targeted programming," the association said in its submitted comments, referring to blockbuster films that now dominate the box office. "Consumers will face increasingly limited choices at the box office, and, without the possibility of a theatrical run, many films will no longer be made, limiting the availability of choices through home entertainment platforms as well."
First post: bye bye indie movies and classics (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it really not okay the way it’s been for the last 50 years?
Was there really a demand for this action? If so, was it really the most important one? Was it in the top 50%?
If somebody wins, somebody loses, and if they went through the trouble of overturning this, someone will win.
Who will win and who will lose?
Re: (Score:2)
Was there really a demand for this action?
No.
Who will win and who will lose?
I'll give you one guess....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, Hollywood is making movies that only Hollywood wants made, not what people are wanting. We see this with crappy re-dos of classic movies under the guise of whatever excuse Hollywood has this week.
I can't wait for Brady Bunch version of two lesbians raising six daughters with a male butler because who wouldn't want to see that! (sarcasm). And if you ever see that movie, remember this post, someone in Hollywood didn't get the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Hollywood is making movies that only Hollywood wants made, not what people are wanting.
And yet, people still go to theaters, buy the discs, and stream the movies. Apparently many people do want the movies Hollywood makes.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't wait for Brady Bunch version of two lesbians raising six daughters with a male butler because who wouldn't want to see that! (sarcasm).
I assume this is porn. Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:First post: bye bye indie movies and classics (Score:4, Insightful)
Because pretending there is no difference between 1955 and 2019 is fucking retarded? When that law was passed ALL of your news and entertainment came from the theater, the only things you had other than the theater was radio and this new fangled thing called a "television" that only broadcast at certain hours and was INSANELY expensive to own. Most towns, even large ones had only a single movie house so if you controlled that venue? You had a lot of control over what people watched.
You have a strange view of what the world was like in 1955. I think you've confused it with 1755 but with television.
In 1955 people had a wide range of newspapers and a thing called "radio", which was a low-bandwith television without pictures. Almost no one got their news from the cinema, still less from the theatre ("Stella! Stella! Have you seen what Ike said this morning?").
Re:First post: bye bye indie movies and classics (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it makes perfect sense. The Hollywood mafia are even worse now than they were back then, so the last thing we need is an easing on restrictions. The times and technology may have changed, but the mafia-like practices of the studios haven't changed one bit.
It's the same reason why a ton of other laws against criminal behavior are still on the books. We don't say "oh, things have changed since the 1950s, let's remove the laws against robbery, murder, extortion, kidnapping, and so on because the landscape is so different now".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't say "oh, things have changed since the 1950s, let's remove the laws against robbery, murder, extortion, kidnapping, and so on because the landscape is so different now".
California says "Hi" https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
It's happening. Little by little what you said "we don't say" is being said, by elected officials. Worse, it's being put into actual practice.
Re: First post: bye bye indie movies and classics (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh for Fs sake, can we not link to such slanted pieces of garbage like that article? It's just a smear against Cali so it makes certain audiences feel good about their views. Never mind the fact that in this instance they are catching up to Texas and many other states.
It's about how Cali made certain small crimes misdemeanors rather than a felony. Like drug use and shoplifting under $1k. OMG, the concept of not branding someone a felon for life and sending massive taxpayer dollars to private companies to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's about how Cali made certain small crimes misdemeanors rather than a felony. Like drug use and shoplifting under $1k. OMG, the concept of not branding someone a felon for life and sending massive taxpayer dollars to private companies to incarcerate them for small crimes that didn't or barely hurt anyone.
Yeah? So now you got people going into stores and walking out with merchandise totaling just under that limit, they know they won't get prosecuted, and if they do, it'll be a quick in n' out and back to the usual in no time.
What the OP was saying is happening - laws are being relaxed - and people are already abusing it.
Keep on making laws with feels, not fact. It's going to spectacularly backfire on CA.
Re: (Score:2)
So what should be the limit where a theft becomes a criminal act instead of a misdemeanor? $500? $100? $0.50? Maybe all theft should be investigated by police and the perpetrator sent to jail?
I would be curious how much investigating went into a stolen laptop at a coffee shop before prop 47 passed. As it is, misdemeanors go on your police record so can influence future prosecutions if you are later charged with a felony (and can affect punishments of further misdemeanors). Most jurisdictions have monetary l
Re: (Score:3)
So what should be the limit where a theft becomes a criminal act instead of a misdemeanor? $500? $100? $0.50? Maybe all theft should be investigated by police and the perpetrator sent to jail?
Yes, all theft from a pencil to a power pole should be investigated, and if guilty, the perp goes to the klink. Easy peasy.
Rehab doesn't work.
Slackening the laws works even worse.
The only way to ensure crooks stay honest is to make it plain: The cops won't do shit about you, but we, the people, will. Assault us at your own risk. Rob us at your own risk. Break into our homes at your own risk. Steal from our businesses at your own risk.
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim wh
It's not "feels", it's proper fiscal sense. (Score:2)
"Yeah? So now you got people going into stores and walking out with merchandise totaling just under that limit, they know they won't get prosecuted, and if they do, it'll be a quick in n' out and back to the usual in no time."
Hardly. The laws the way they were are the reason for the truly massive incarceration rates the US has relative to other countries first world countries. Meanwhile, the crime rates for things like what are being downgraded aren't all that different.
"Keep on making laws with feels, not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that texas classifies shoplifting as a misdemeanor as well, but their cutoff is $1,500; higher than Cali.
Re: (Score:2)
OP didn't say relaxed, they said removed.
Re: (Score:3)
And where is that happening in Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
Austin mainly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a warning sign of impending ratfuckery when a politician wants to overturn a law primarily because it's old and can't make a good argument as to why it's bad.
The baseless appeal to novelty is almost exclusively used by conservatives though, and conservative involvement is also a warning sign.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You have that wrong. Dead wrong. The reason we had B movies was so that we could have double features. And, if it weren't for B movies, we wouldn't have the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes movies or the Charlie Chan movies, among many oth
Re: (Score:2)
we are so flooded by entertainment options these days just getting anybody to get off their ass and go to a theater instead of "Netflix and chill"ing is a feat in and of itself
Netflix is a dead man walking; it will be gone inside two years.
No the big threat is Darth Disney is already yanking Fox movies and stuffing them into the Disney vault so that places that run classics can't get access to them so as Darth Disney gobbles up more and more companies? That is more and more entertainment going into the vault until they figure out how to wring every last shekel out of 'em. So if you want to be scared of something? Be scared of Disney because at this rate there won't be a studio in the USA that doesn't belong to the House Of Mouse in less than 10 years.
Well, isn't that the problem? Disney will be able to dictate the market, including the cinemas.
I assume the JD's line about not being able to reinstate the monopoly was by way of humour.
Re:First post: bye bye indie movies and classics (Score:5, Interesting)
Another danger is a company like Disney expanding their vertical and setting up a bunch of their own movie theaters. Imagine that: Disney blockbusters (which is a rather large set) only run in Disney theaters for the first 2-3 weeks after opening; after that the other theaters get to have them. I'm starting to believe we need to have more antitrust laws to cover verticals, in cases where your strength in one business strengthens your position in another, and the other way around, to the point where you can lock in customers and lock out competitors.
As for removing movies from the market like this, I would say that this is in direct violation of copyright, which exists not for the benefit of content creators, but "to promote the progress of useful arts and science"; the monopoly granted to creators is a means, not an end. They should have that stuff reverted to the public domain as a punishment. No, I'm serious. Copyright means (or should mean) that you can make a profit off your works, sell it under reasonable terms, and protect it from others who are out to steal your hard work, for a limited time only. It should not mean total control in what effectively is perpetuity. Until recently, here in the Netherlands the government had more or less the same view, and told us that if a movie wasn't available under reasonable terms in our country, they would not prosecute those who got a copy by illicit means. Unfortunately they were forced to change that stance because of European law and the more recent international treaties, but that is the true spirit of copyright right there.
Re: (Score:2)
As for removing movies from the market like this, I would say that this is in direct violation of copyright, which exists not for the benefit of content creators, but "to promote the progress of useful arts and science"; the monopoly granted to creators is a means, not an end. They should have that stuff reverted to the public domain as a punishment.
I prefer the other options discussed on Slashdot in recent years.
First, revert to copyright requiring registration, as was the case up until 1989 in the US, and prior to 1886 in countries which signed onto the Berne Convention early. Somebody needs to tell Trump that Obama approved of the Berne Convention, so the US gets withdrawn from it. Then formal registration can return, with copyright notice requirements, and then, step two.
Two, since copyrighted works are property, all registered copyrighted works
Re: (Score:2)
Block booking certainly has the potential to push out indie movies. Our theaters often show classics, indies, documentaries or less popular domestic movies, usually in the smaller screening rooms. However, if the theaters are forced to buy (I mean licence of course) a bunch of B movies along with their bread and butter blockbusters, they'll show those instead. Another danger is a company like Disney expanding their vertical and setting up a bunch of their own movie theaters. Imagine that: Disney blockbusters (which is a rather large set) only run in Disney theaters for the first 2-3 weeks after opening; after that the other theaters get to have them. I'm starting to believe we need to have more antitrust laws to cover verticals, in cases where your strength in one business strengthens your position in another, and the other way around, to the point where you can lock in customers and lock out competitors. As for removing movies from the market like this, I would say that this is in direct violation of copyright, which exists not for the benefit of content creators, but "to promote the progress of useful arts and science"; the monopoly granted to creators is a means, not an end. They should have that stuff reverted to the public domain as a punishment. No, I'm serious. Copyright means (or should mean) that you can make a profit off your works, sell it under reasonable terms, and protect it from others who are out to steal your hard work, for a limited time only. It should not mean total control in what effectively is perpetuity. Until recently, here in the Netherlands the government had more or less the same view, and told us that if a movie wasn't available under reasonable terms in our country, they would not prosecute those who got a copy by illicit means. Unfortunately they were forced to change that stance because of European law and the more recent international treaties, but that is the true spirit of copyright right there.
Disney was never part of the original decree. It never applied to them. Disney could have opened a theater any time they wanted yet they haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh it was block booking that gave us all those cheesy films of the 30s and 40s which some of us actually enjoy. The reason we have "B" movies in our vocabulary was if you wanted the big hits (The "A" movies) you also had to take the cheaper "B" movies which is why they would often do double features, you would get the B movie first followed by the big A lister.
Some people is the key word. And anymore, an awful lot of what comes out of Hollywood *is* B movies, just with bigger budgets and treated like they're A movies. They keep remaking and rebooting everything, making worse versions than the original in most cases. It's like the creative well has nearly run dry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No the big threat is Darth Disney is already yanking Fox movies and stuffing them into the Disney vault [youtube.com] so that places that run classics can't get access to them so as Darth Disney gobbles up more and more companies? That is more and more entertainment going into the vault until they figure out how to wring every last shekel out of 'em. So if you want to be scared of something? Be scared of Disney because at this rate there won't be a studio in the USA that doesn't belong to the House Of Mouse in less than 10 years.
Disney was never part of the original decree. It never applied to them. Disney could have opened a theater any time they wanted yet they haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
For every movie you dislike, three movies you like will be destroyed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not possible.
I only like about 5% of movies.
Re:First post: bye bye indie movies and classics (Score:5, Insightful)
And out of the 5% you like, how many of the directors, actors, craftspeople, etc. got their start doing indie films? The same indie films they put on their resume which helped them get into mainstream media. Roger Corman alone helped... (Source: IGN's Top People Roger Corman helped)
Directors: Francis Ford Copala - Martin Scorsese - Ron Howard - Joe Dante - James Cameron
Cinematographer: Janusz Kaminski
Composer: James Horner
Actors: Jack Nicholsen - Charles Bronson - Robert De Niro - Sylvester Stallon - Sandra Bullock - David Carradine
How many of these names would actually be names in their perspective fields if indie films wouldn't have given them a chance?
Re: (Score:2)
I both dislike and like the same movie.
Disney: Error, all movies have been destroyed.
Oh Goodie! (Score:5, Interesting)
In my city, I think it is one group owns everything. And there are several of these stations that play the same exact content.
So you have NPR, a bunch of religious stations, right wing talk radio, and the rest of us have moved to Sirius XM.
Yeah - this will work swell.
online streaming (Score:2)
...and everyone listen their music from Spotify.
Re: (Score:2)
Treating radio as if it is "for music" is like treating internet as if it is "for youtube".
Re: (Score:3)
The radio is for more than music. I get all my morning news while I drive.
And I get my morning news from any one of a zillion podcasts. I'm sure I could find a streaming news feed if I wanted something which was a few hours more current.
The whole context of this story is theaters, radio stations, and TV stations are no longer choke points. Consumers have a much broader range of choices if they want to access movies, shows, songs, and news. As a result, the 1949 consent decree really is no longer relevant and appropriate.
Dating back to 1949 (Score:5, Insightful)
"from the early days of Hollywood"
You know they were making movies before the second (world) war.
Although most of them were B/W.
1949 is not the early days.
Re: (Score:2)
You know they were making movies before the second (world) war. Although most of them were B/W.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_film [wikipedia.org]
For what it's worth, Edward Raymond Turner made the 1st truly color film in 1902. Examples of really good silent color movies can be found on YouTube: the 1922 "The Toll Of The Sea"; the 1926 "The Black Pirate" and the 1929 "Redskin". The 1925 "Ben-Hur" is excellent, but only has a few color sequences, besides YouTube charges $3 bucks to watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1925 "Ben-Hur" is excellent, but only has a few color sequences, besides YouTube charges $3 bucks to watch it.
So go to the Internet Archive [archive.org] instead.
Bring in Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks, Judge. We look forward to Disney buying up all the theaters and making sure only their movies get played.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why buy the theatres
To put everyone else out of business. Playing your shitty movies won't do that. Locking others out of the business will.
Re: (Score:2)
They did this when Iron Giant came out. My local theater admitted that Disney said they couldn't show the next Toy Story movie if they didn't bury Iron Giant. And how they did that was by having one showing a day at 10 a.m..
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not forget driving everyone they can't buy out of business by refusing to let them show Disney movies.
This is a bad ruling and is going to lead to a nasty anti-competitive landscape in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
China Approved Disney movies get played
Re:Bring in Disney (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Judge. We look forward to Disney buying up all the theaters and making sure only their movies get played.
Disney was never part of the original decree. It never applied to them. Disney could have opened a theater any time they wanted yet they haven't.
Is the theater still a thing? (Score:2)
Back in 1949, the only way to reasonably show a "movie" was in a theater. Nowadays, I watch more movies on my TV or iPad than I do in a theater. As I've said, I go to theater to watch the big "event" movies--the tentpoles, if you will. I'll watch cute romcoms, serious dramas, documentaries, etc. at home. The giant screen and surround-sound aren't as important for those sorts of films versus, say, the latest superhero movie.
It's a fair question: Are movie producers getting squeezed out of the theater bu
Re: (Score:2)
I have a giant screen and surround sound at home. And it is far superior to any "movie theatre" I have ever been in.
Re: (Score:3)
Must have only been to pretty shitty theatres, then.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there are a lot of shitty cinemas. And all cinemas have other people in them - they tend to be the real problem.
Re: Is the theater still a thing? (Score:2)
Well kiss it goodbye! If studios buy theaters streaming and DVD releases will be delayed longer and longer because they will be able to force you to pay even more to see it at their theaters and put all the money in their pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, no mention in the summary about ASCAP (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
"The Justice Department has been reviewing more than 1,000 consent decrees with no expiration dates affecting a range of industries, with an eye toward cancelling them.
Other controversial consent decrees under review are two reached in 1941 with music licensing groups American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI). A termination could upend the business of licensing music to online companies, movie companies, commercials, bars and restaurants since ASCAP and BMI license about 90 percent of music."
This could be a pretty big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, there's very little about the music and movie business that's not corrupt AF.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, there's very little about the music and movie business that's not corrupt AF.
And you think it will get better with this removed??
Well, we've been voting in pro corporate folks (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep pointing this out on these threads because, well, the threads keep coming. About once or twice a month some major linchpin of our economic system's checks and balances gets dismantled and we all just shrug it off.
For all those who keep voting for the corporatists, I hope whatever it is they offer you for your vote that it was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Regan was Reagan's Treasury secretary for awhile, and then became chief of staff, before he soiled his nest and was booted out of the administration.
What âoeaisleâ? (Score:2)
That's alright. (Score:2)
I have no love for movie theaters.
If there's even a chance that this will make it so movie makers have to cater to the interests of home theaters a little more, then I'm totally cool with movie theaters destroying themselves with this kind of stupidity.
I wouldn't choose this for any of them - but I'm totally fine if they allow horrible decisions like this to destroy their industry in the name of glorious consolidation for a single financial quarter of benefit followed by rapid decline.
Same way I felt about
This is about giving movie studios more power (Score:2)
This isn't the movie theaters doing anything.
This story is about the Justice department allowing movie studios to do things they weren't allowed to do before.
For example, Universal Pictures isn't allowed to own a chain of movie theaters, and say you can only see the new Fast Furious at a Universal theater. Maybe only theaters owned by Disney could show Avengers and Captain Marvel.
The existing theaters HATE this change.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't the movie theaters doing anything. This story is about the Justice department allowing movie studios to do things they weren't allowed to do before.
For example, Universal Pictures isn't allowed to own a chain of movie theaters, and say you can only see the new Fast Furious at a Universal theater. Maybe only theaters owned by Disney could show Avengers and Captain Marvel.
The existing theaters HATE this change.
I agree that having to go to a studio-branded theater to see that studio's content might be one end result. The law of Supply and Demand is currently forcing theaters to keep prices somewhat reasonable. If supply is artificially limited (a studio no longer required to to distribute their content), then I hate to think of what will happen to ticket prices.
The original ruling rightly separated Content from Delivery and I don't see how it is outdated in light of today's technology. I would rather see it extend
Re: (Score:3)
I think that is a reasonable rule to have. That if you are to distribute your media in a digital format, any digital delivery service should be able to distribute it for the same licensing fee. I don't see why the vertical monopolies are allowed to pull content from a competing platform in order to make it exclusively available on their own wholly owned platform.
That's the definition of anti-competitive behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
I too have no love for movie theaters; it isn't for what they are showing but that I'd have to touch the seats Ma and Pa Kettle's kids have slimed.
Justice Department? (Score:2)
Why would the DOJ be making rules about movie distribution?
Rules = laws. This is what a legislature is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the legislature passes laws that gives the DOJ power to set such rules.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't making rules. They've asked the court to retire an anti-trust consent decree that, from their arguments, is no longer needed.
Apparently they are working through 1000's of older consent decrees to see if they need/want them on the books any longer.
Eat the Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a single thing this administration does that isn't designed to only benefit the biggest companies and the richest assholes at the expense of everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a single thing this administration does that isn't designed to only benefit the biggest companies and the richest assholes at the expense of everyone else?
Oh yes; the rich assholes in Hollywood and the big entertainment companies sure hated Obama ... you'll recall how they were his sworn enemies and constantly trashing him. (eyeroll)
More than a single thing (Score:2)
Here are at least five things [houstonpress.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this list. I hate the guy but it's nice to see some good things that get lost in the noise.
The only thing I'd leave off this list though is the donating his salary. I mean I'd totally donate my salary too if I could use my position at work to open business opportunities for myself and make 5 or 10 times more.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler made the Volkswagen Beetle... (Score:2)
And Hitler was instrumental in making of the Volkswagen Beetle.
He also painted and loved dogs.
Which clearly has him up two points over Dumpy who has all the creative need of a bag of sand and about half of that amount of empathy for other creatures.
But I particularly like the bit in that article where the author bends over backwards to make Dumpy somehow responsible for banning bump-stocks - while vetoing background checks law passed by the House.
Which supposedly means he "embraced gun control in small ways
Re: (Score:3)
Prison reform, a distraction from Trump's support for private prisons [americanprogress.org], AKA slavery. Trump's net result on prison reform is therefore negative.
Banning bump stocks usurps congressional authority [reason.com] and will actually hurt, not help [csmonitor.com] because they are the least accurate way to make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Banning them only promotes select fire mods.
Salary donation, grossly outstripped by his abuses, it's a distraction. He makes far more by golfing at his own property nearly every weekend than he would by keepi [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, they did absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, the U.S. bombed Daesh who was hiding out in Syria having massacred thousands of Iraqis and Syrians. They wanted to go to Heaven and U.S. opened up an express lane for them.
Libya was done to prevent Quaddfi from massacring his people, which he proudly proclaimed he was going to do. Then the Libyans sent him to Heaven in a very unorthodox way. After that, the Libyans decided what they couldn't stand the most was each other. The Africans south of the Sahara found a route to the Mediterranean
Controlling the business (Score:4, Insightful)
ruled that Hollywood's eight largest studios could not own theaters, and thus control the film business.
Rather than abolish these rules, it would have been a better idea to add streaming services to the list of things that are harmful for the studios to own, to prevent them from controlling distribution. I'm damned if I'm signing up to 8 streaming services plus an independent for the rest of the movies, so I guess I'll be torrentting the big 8's movies now that they are getting into the streaming business, and save my money for supporting the indies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm damned if I'm signing up to 8 streaming services plus an independent for the rest of the movies, so I guess I'll be torrentting the big 8's movies now that they are getting into the streaming business, and save my money for supporting the indies.
Voting with your wallet is the best move you can make. I don't endorse torrenting but fully support your decision to not pay for a half-dozen streaming services.
Just read the book. It's probably better anyway.
Going the wrong way. (Score:3)
So the old laws are behind the times, update them instead of dropping what you apparently don't understand.
Re:Going the wrong way. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong direction (Score:3)
Unfortunately, while theatres are dying, this is the wrong direction. We're seeing the studio conglomerates instead take over the streaming space - pushing out other companies and monopolising the space.
We need a new case to extend the protections to prevent studios owning streaming services, not abolition of the old rules.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point I think we should just make a law that Disney has to buy up all intellectual property and be done with it (after all that seems to be where they are heading anyway).
We need more anti-trust not LESS (Score:4, Interesting)
Judging the rural by urban standards, again. (Score:4, Insightful)
"not only do our metropolitan areas have many multiplex cinemas"
This is, again, where the rural communities feel that the government is not paying attention to them, and is leading to why they vote for the nutcases they do. Yeah, I've got 9 multiplex's within a 10 mile radius of where I'm at.
Great.
A blogger I follow is a professor at a college in rural Minnesota. The town has one theater, with two screens. Regardless of which regulations get pulled, it is clear that the DOJ is not considering the needs and the impacts of them on these small towns.
Mind you, those rural types did vote for the party that appointed this very pro-big-corporation DOJ who is doing this, so they kind of asked for it by not paying attention to who they really are, but regardless, it is systematic of why the rural communities simply believe that "us city folk" never listen to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even have to live in a one-stoplight town to have this problem. I live and work in the Bryan/College Station area of Texas. It's technically classified as a "metropolitan area" according to whatever the standard is for that, but it feels like a suburb in the middle of nowhere, smack dab in the middle of the triangle formed by Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas. It has a population of about 270K, so while it may be remote, it's not small. By all accounts, we have it pretty good here with four theater
What problem is the government trying to solve? (Score:2)
Besides enriching media corporations that already have massive pocket books I honestly don't see what public good is being accomplished by this regulatory act. This consent decree has been working for a very long time and has not harmed the industry one bit. It has allowed independent artists to get exposure, along with the large media conglomerates.
While I admit that taking away this regulation is another step of the Trump administration's stated goal of eliminating government regulations, I would not cl
Attacked studios, but ignored the Cable cartel? (Score:2)
"They also banned "block booking," a bundling practice where studios forced theaters to play their bad movies along with their good ones or not play any."
So, let me get this straight; you addressed this problem back in 1949, and then proceeded to ignore the hell out of it and allow the Cable Cartels to pull this exact same shit for the last seventy fucking years?
How many bad cable channels are we forced to pay for in order to get the half-dozen good ones we actually want?
Guess we know which cartel is actually in charge here. Hollywood looks like a bitch by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the initial judgement was to divorce production from distribution. I was hoping someone sane would eventually do the same thing with digital distribution so that every distributor would get equitable access to all digitally distributed content, rather than going the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
And now Hollywood will once again push that crap in the theaters. Sounds like a good way to hasten the demise of the theater experience and the end of a cultural era.
Drive-ins are already gone, this could be the final coffin nail for the whole thing. These days with home theater, they're becoming less relevant anyway.
A bit of a rant....Subject is required? (Score:2)
Today, not only do our metropolitan areas have many multiplex cinemas showing films from different distributors,
To quote one of my favorite movies:
"So who the fuck wants to see them?" (in theaters) - Cousin Avi (Snatch)
but much of our movie-watching is not in theaters at all. I,
Exactly. I like watching movies at home. I can start, pause, and rewind the movie at will. I can abandon it altogether if I decide without sacrificing the $10 or whatever I just paid to watch it.
On the other hand, maybe my friends would rather pay $10 just to not have to put up with me holding the remote control during a movie :)
Smells like monopoly BS (Score:2)
But that was when "metropolitan areas generally had a single movie theater with one screen that showed a single movie at a time," Mr. Delrahim said.
But wait...isn't that now?
This smells like the DOJ getting a little lovin from the studios so they can lockup what is left of the theater experience.
It is interesting that their are laws on the books still that are completely anachronistic but they are suddenly concerned about this one?
Replace it wirh Cable&Online limits (Score:2)
I want to care (Score:2)
I want to care, but if I never had to go to a dirty, sticky, noisy theater again to see a new movie, I would be much, much happier. Just let me rent/buy the new movies at home and I don't care who owns the theater I don't want to go to.
- Necron69
Re: (Score:2)