[flagged]
> Who cares? Someone cares enough to offer $111B...
[flagged]
Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
11–20 of 55 posts
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#12[flagged]
What is supposed to be the connection here?
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really comparing youtube with theatre movies? Do you really think a monopoly is going to improve anything for anybody? Who cares? Everyone should care about these things. It's 2026 and you still have to explain that monopolies are bad? Jesus
> Are you really comparing youtube with theatre movies? Yes I'm comparing youtube to movies. They're direct competitors. My decision on Friday night is often do I go to the movies or do I watch something on YouTube. > Do you really think a monopoly is going to improve anything for anybody? They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category. Sometimes companies go out of business because the economics are s…
They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category.
By that reasoning I could have a monopoly on peanuts and it’s alright because consumers can choose from hundreds of other foods.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#14Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares? People who like movies, presumably
What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…
> bigger company = worse movies?
Less competition.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares? People who like movies, presumably
What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…
> What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies?
Monopoly => lack of competition => enshittification and abuse.
> Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively.
As much as I like Netflix, permanent ownership of movies and series on my side, after one time payment would be hugely desirable. Overall, I dont like this "you just rent catalogues you have no control over" development is all that great.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares? Someone cares enough to offer $111B...
[flagged]
you'd have to actually care about politics, the far right, how ruper murdoch and nixon's advisors spent 50 years making Fox news an unassailable fortress of misinformation a geriatric rapist used as a platform to take over a democratic leadership.
Those are the same people trying to take another media entity into.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares? People who like movies, presumably
What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…
It's interesting that you bring up Netflix. While their initial offering of having a good selection of movies in one subscription was very attractive, their expansion and eventual entry to public stock market caused it to be pretty much synonymous with "slop" in TV and movie circles, which I think makes a very good case that "big production studio" != "good quality productions".
Warner Bros specifically, while still a very large studio, has been relatively generous with funding more risky movies, and there is a lot of warranted caution that this consolidation is going to result in streamlining everything into taking as few risks as possible and aiming for broadest appeal and highest possible gross margins, which is a terrible thing for anything that could be considered art.
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#19[flagged]
>Kind of wild that states can just sue and have success in blocking a merger. Any of 50 states can potentially have a veto on something like this? On what grounds?
This isn't a permanent injunction, the judge simply paused the merger for two weeks while they can hold a hearing on a longer injunction ahead of a trial
And even that injunction wouldn't be permanent, it would just keep the transaction from completing until the trial is complete, since obviously if they merge it is hard to unwind should Paramount lose
And yes, states can "just sue" to enforce the law, just like the DOJ could have sued to enforce the law. Antitrust is not a criminal matter, but this is essentially the same thing as filing charges
Re: Judge halts Paramount's $111B purchase of Warner Bros. in win for US states
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares? People who like movies, presumably
What's your mental model for bigger company = worse movies? Here are a few positives: Larger movie catalog all under one place, better value bundle due to fewer transaction costs in negotiation. Imagine the extreme where every movie was owned by a different owner. Netflix would not be able to license content effectively. More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new…
> More risky movies. If a company has more diversified income stream, it can take more risks on new and interesting movies.
Citation. This is not my observation.