Amazon in talks to buy MGM for $9bn | Hacker News Reader

Amazon in talks to buy MGM for $9bn

uk.finance.yahoo.com

30 pointsnixass20 comments

Please, please, please regulators, don't allow them. It is obvious that they want exclusive content for Amazon VoD, and this kind of plattform exclusive content is harmful to the users. For a working market, it is important to separate content producers/IP holders from the plattforms so they arrange for license deals.

I think that's a pretty difficult argument to make. Why can Disney do this, but Amazon can't. Why can Netflix do this, but Amazon can't. Why can ViacomCBS do it with Paramount+ but Amaozn can't?

Almost the entire history of content production has involved vertical integration.

> Almost the entire history of content production has involved vertical integration

Indeed, history repeats itself.

Once all content is locked into silos, we may find ourselves here again:

The 1948 Paramount Decision was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Supreme Court affirmed (a District Court's ruling) in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of United States antitrust law, which prohibits certain exclusive dealing arrangements.

Paramount Pictures Inc. was forced to split into two companies: the film company Paramount Pictures Corp. and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

I genuinely can't imagine the government doing something like this today

Why not? My hopes (as a European) are that the US will split up the large FAANGs to restore a fair and working market again. The US had several split ups forced by antitrust regulations in the past (Standard Oil, AT&T) and I sincerely hope they go back to this kind of market intervention policy.

None of those other acquisitions should’ve been allowed either

Disney absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to get as big as it has now. Their weight in the industry is so great that they bend the space-time of copyright laws to fit their agenda.

Netflix paved their own way. They didn't just buy up some company

Want to boost IP creation by creators and make distributors beg? Have copyright return to creators after 20 or so years after they've been transferred via whatever contracts. Lots of renegotiations will mean lots of money for Picassos!

After all, everyone says the aim of stronger copyright laws is to protect "creators" (those same laws that implement near perpetual copyright terms, extraditions, $100k+ fine and 5+ years jail that can easily be applied such as sharing a picture to your parents)

Sometimes it amazes me how naive some people are.

All this will accomplish is that contracts will then include a waiver of this right.

There are rights that cannot be waived. Ultimately it's law, not contracts, that is supreme. Although this is under attack, such as the proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses, and the unwillingness of courts to invalidate them.

This is not so much a waiver of a right than a transfer. As such, I know of no instance where transfer of ownership like this has been made illegal insofar as the ownership itself is not in doubt.

A 'transfer' means the party the rights were transferred from no longer has them, so from their point of view, it's not much different than a waiver. And there are numerous rights that cannot be transferred or waived. For example, California limits non-competes. For a closer example, there are moral rights to copyright, that in many jurisdictions cannot be sold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

> In the United States, moral rights are not transferable, and end only with the life of the author. Authors may, however, waive their moral rights if this is done in writing.

So does this confirm that what you're claiming is not applicable in the US?

Non-competes are a different animal from transferring ownership over IP. Even so, CA does not stop an employer from raking an employee over the coals if they provably stole IP that did not belong to them.

> So does this confirm that what you're claiming is not applicable in the US?

In the US, yes. But there is no reason similar laws couldn't be enacted in the US.

> Non-competes are a different animal from transferring ownership over IP.

They're an example of a right that you cannot waive or sell. So an example of the law annulling a private contract, meaning that there is precedent for this proposed change - the law could be written so that simply selling this proposed new right is impossible, just as you cannot sell your right to work at a competing business.

I'm more interested in rights specifically relating to IP (with emphasis on the 'P' as in property), rather than rights in general - I agree that there are many cases in which the latter are inalienable or considered immutable in the eyes of the law. So the 'moral rights' idea is a good counterpoint, but non-compete is not.

There are already laws forcing copyright reversion in certain circumstances regardless of what a contract states.

Search the term "copyright reversion" if you want to know more.

This URL forces me to consent to data collection. Remove the uk, and it becomes viewable: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-mgm-takeover-talks-jam...

GDPR compliance, if you remove "uk" from the URL they just don't ask first :)

Javascript is disabled for me so they can take whatever they find, won't be much based just on my HTTP headers...

The popup still blocked the article without JS and the article isn't even loaded in behind it (otherwise I'd zap the popup element)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com