For those of you not getting the Chiefs/Broncos game tonight

MAY 4, 1948 The Paramount Case

Read about it. Secondly I didnt post any article, genius. Thirdly, I will blieve "Variety," a trade paper working Film/TV since its inception rather than ESPN's writers.

 

XFL, Arena, etc? How can you say they are a monopoly? Just because they are running their business better than anyone else can doesn't make them a monopoly. What would make them a monopoly is if they were preventing other leagues from starting up or hurting the consumer but that simply isn't happening.

Time Warner and other local cable providers are gov't-sanctioned monopolies. I don't get the chance to chose between TWC, Cox, Comcast, etc. Now, I can choose to go with Satellite but that is a whole different issue. The fact remains that local cable providers are gov't-sanctioned monopolies while the NFL is not.

Added gov't-sanctioned since that is why they are allowed to continue as monopolies.

Furthermore, if you are sure they are a monopoly, sue them. Good luck with that!

 

The proucer can not be the sole distributor.

Also how is the sat. TV issue a whole different issue? Thats a idiotic statment.

 

I know about it, and also know that it isn't in any way applicable to this case. The NFL has every right to control the distribution of its own product. They can charge fees for NFL Network just as they reach agreements with CBS, Fox, and NBC, or just as the Yankees provide broadcasts of their contests through the YES Network.

My mistake, but the article chipshot posted is from the WSJ and proves what you said wrong. ESPN does charge more than 70 cents, so either you misquoted Variety or they made a blindingly stupid mistake.

That is incorrect. I suggest that you read the case you told me to read. The USSC did not rule that the producer could not also be the distributor (which you should have known since that still happens all the time). They ruled that the studios could not use block booking to force unwanted movies into the theaters.

 

WOW!...ah fuck it, I ain't getting in the middle of this bullshit.

I will toss this little nugget...I have always wondered how much more the NFL would make by making ALL NFL games available a-la-carte in a pay per view or a team package platform similar to having season tickets?

I have DTV and the NFL ticket, so I could really give a fuck...but I still think the league could make a shitload more money.

 

Because I only have one choice for Cable. Having to choose Satellite is a different issue than only having one choice for Cable.

BTW, you need to read the Paramount decision. The reasoning behind it is that the major movie makers were preventing independent film makers from entering the market because they owned the theatres. This isn't the case with the NFL. Independent football leagues have been able to start up (Arena, XFL, etc.). Some have survived and some haven't. Totally different issue than this. It isn't about producer being the sole provider. ABC is allowed to make movies that only they can show. If that reasoning was behind the Paramount case, then ABC is in the wrong. It really isn't. It is due to Independent Film Makers were not able to compete with the Studios.

 

as I sit here and watch the NFL network for the 3rd straight day with tevo

I find myself agreeing with colon. Cable will not win this battle, either they pay and pass the cost to the customers or lose customers like me. Right now direct tv is has a monopoly on all non-local NFL games and cable is allowing this by not giving the NFL what they want. By the way, who would ever watch a league other than the NFL now?

 

I wouldn't watch any and would only go out to sports bars if that were the case.

 

As stated before I will believe Entertainment Business Writers than someone who writes for the WSJ. As proven Wall Street knows very little about entertainment.

The Paramount case in every way relates to this. I am not going to argue about it because you are an idiot. Everyone on this board thinks you are a joke. Collin has become TBR slang for "beating a dead horse." You argument style is groundless. You engage someone with idiotic statements waiting until a minor syntactical error is made. If that takes too long typos become fair game.

You are good at one think Spin. You spin anything so that it, however illogically supports your viewpoint. Your hubris doesn't help either. I am sure that you don't care though. You probably have a 2 inch boner of this post. Two inches is being gnerous because a man with your need to be right must have some sort of insecurities.

With that I wish you happy turkey day and bid you "Please, continue telling us more about how television works. I love seeing accountants (or whatever thing you do) prophesize.

 

First off, I wrote a 35 page paper on the Paramount case. BCN 343 ( I believe). Media Law and Ethics. I understand that law and court cases provide for extension.

Secondly,ABC isntin the business of making films. Good example, I did casting for Deal or No Deal. A show most would call an NBC production. NBC funded it but it was produced by 3 Ball Entertainment