Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 255 posts

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#21

Post by afavour »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #20
afavour wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP didn't even use the word monopoly. You don't have to view it through that narrow a lens. I think it's fair to ask if it is in consumers interest to have to buy an Apple TV to watch Apple produced shows, an Amazon Fire stick to watch Amazon/MGM content, etc. etc. I know that isn't the world we're in right now but the spats you see between e.g. Google and Roku (and Amazon and Google) feel indicative of a likely futu…

The world I used to live in required paying a third party to watch media, from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted.

Does that mean we shouldn't ever strive for better?

> from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted.

That's still quite possible in the future. If providers lock down the hardware you can use to watch then maybe you won't be able to watch on your phone if they don't feel like letting you.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#22

Post by throwaway_kufu »

snarf21 wrote: post #6

Is the SEC and FTC ever going to do their job? They have failed us in the 21st century. Shareholder value over everything else. It would be nice for some regulation to attack all this rent seeking.

For a little background on the movie industry and antitrust law, the Hollywood studios once upon owned everything from the way movies were produced, distributed and exhibited.

The monopoly held by the studios was effectively broken up following WWII. Yes, there were multiple studios competing but individually they were engaging in antitrust behavior.

This acquisition is essentially a waiving of the white flag and passing the torch. It will be allowed because big tech/Hollywood own politicians.

However, and I think to your point, it is impossible to reconcile that Netflix is engaging in the same behavior (producing, distributing and exhibiting) as the Hollywood studios when the courts broke up the industry to allow fair competition.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#23

Post by mikeryan »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #16
Server6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its for MGM's IP and back catalog so Amazon can literally rent it for a monthly price.

The better way to address this would be reducing copyright lengths to 20 years or something reasonable.

Not from the studios perspective. They want the exclusivity.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#24

Post by JohnHaugeland »

afavour wrote: post #18
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this means that amazon will have about 4% of the industry this isn't even slightly a monopoly by the legal definition

OP didn't even use the word monopoly. You don't have to view it through that narrow a lens. I think it's fair to ask if it is in consumers interest to have to buy an Apple TV to watch Apple produced shows, an Amazon Fire stick to watch Amazon/MGM content, etc. etc. I know that isn't the world we're in right now but the spats you see between e.g. Google and Roku (and Amazon and Google) feel indicative of a likely futu…

Why else would the SEC or the FTC be involved?

This isn't rent seeking. That phrase is becoming much too popular with the Apple store debacle.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#25

Post by lotsofpulp »

afavour wrote: post #21
lotsofpulp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world I used to live in required paying a third party to watch media, from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted.

Does that mean we shouldn't ever strive for better? > from their proprietary devices, and I did not get to watch it whenever, and however I wanted. That's still quite possible in the future. If providers lock down the hardware you can use to watch then maybe you won't be able to watch on your phone if they don't feel like letting you.

My point was that we did strive for better, and I can now watch whatever I want whenever I want however I want, for 90% of things.

For the rest, like sports and some other live stuff that is stuck in the past, I simply ignore.

I would not go after legislation to prevent mergers to prevent locked down devices or restrictions on how you can watch. We already had that without the mergers, so why would that address the situation?

If the point is to keep the content flowing far and wide, then that should be addressed directly.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#26

Post by ghaff »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #19
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of good stuff does MGM have? I use Prime Video a lot since it is basically free with my Prime and would love some new quality content. Edit: Posting this I found because my question was dumb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_fi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_fi...

Yeah, a lot of it's older but it's a huge high-quality film back catalog which Amazon doesn't really have today.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#27

Post by huitzitziltzin »

snarf21 wrote: post #6

Is the SEC and FTC ever going to do their job? They have failed us in the 21st century. Shareholder value over everything else. It would be nice for some regulation to attack all this rent seeking.

what job do you want the FTC to do here? I assume you think there is an antitrust angle on this potential acquisition? I am an economist and that is my field. I disagree with your take, if that is what you mean.

This is a vertical merger. Vertical mergers are quite different in their welfare effects to consumers than horizontal mergers. Vertical mergers can frequently be welfare-improving to consumers.

Indeed, this is why vertical mergers are harder to regulate than horizontal mergers. The welfare effects are not obvious ex ante. This has a decent chance to be pro-consumer. I don’t see any reason for the FTC to object to this on antitrust grounds.

Most of the hate Amazon gets on this site for being a “monopoly” is extremely wide of the mark. If your prediction is that this will result in a welfare loss to consumers I would ask that you offer some evidence.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#28

Post by GeekyBear »

Isn't it the case that a radio station doesn't need the permission of a composer to play their work on the radio, but instead pays a non-negotiable fee?

Internet radio stations work similarly, but also distribute money to the performer(s) and label.

The core idea of forced licensing to any streaming service willing to pay a set fee could do a lot to prevent consumers from needing to pay for so many streaming services.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#29

Post by bilbo0s »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #16
Server6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its for MGM's IP and back catalog so Amazon can literally rent it for a monthly price.

The better way to address this would be reducing copyright lengths to 20 years or something reasonable.

This.

Why is everyone ignoring these obvious solutions?

I feel like there are these enormous movements out there to advance byzantine solutions to problems we could readily address with simple new rules. What's worse, these movements champion things like break ups, which will never work for the vast majority of these firms. Many are not monopolies, and do not operate as trusts. (Though FB, Google, and Amazon come closest.) Meeting legal definitions matter to Supremes. No matter how silly the legal definitions may seem to us as laymen.

Two simple new rules. One, make the using of the private data of any user for commercial purposes explicitly illegal with draconian fines assessed per individual violation, not per user. Two, redo copyright in the manner you suggest. No more renewing for what becomes something akin to a copyright perpetuity.

These two rule changes would neuter the power of a lot of these companies.

Re: Amazon is reportedly negotiating to acquire MGM for about $9B

#30

Post by lotsofpulp »

mikeryan wrote: post #23
lotsofpulp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The better way to address this would be reducing copyright lengths to 20 years or something reasonable.

Not from the studios perspective. They want the exclusivity.

Yes, so the proper way to help consumers is to remove the exclusivity and deal with the problem directly. Preventing mergers does not do anything, except add a middleman.
Post reply on HN