What other cases? Things like Amazon, Ticketmaster, Microsoft, Google, Meta and what not all still exist as is. There are so many mega monopolies today it would get exhausting to list them all,...
What other cases? Things like Amazon, Ticketmaster, Microsoft, Google, Meta and what not all still exist as is. There are so many mega monopolies today it would get exhausting to list them all, and they donate to the dems just as much as the reps.
In fact a huge criticism of biden in the past is that he was one of the establishment dems who tended to champion the larger corporations (see, student loans being guaranteed through bankruptcy).
Bluntly, to poke a hole in ANY of these organizations, it's going to take a fuck ton of time, effort, and fighting, and I don't think that them doing this right before the election (when trump might win and wipe it all out), shows a sincere effort.
I'd be glad to be wrong, but i'm not aware of ANY monopoly breakup by the biden admin anywhere near the scale of ticketmaster. In fact there's currently criticism of them bringing "nuisance" suits that were unwinnable but just "tax" the company. I think that's overselling the issue, but there's absolutely been a lot of cavalier/send a message cases which they've lost.
Well, looking at their filings, there were 39 in 2021, 35, in 2022, and 28 in 2023. Those cases didn't end in the DoJ "taking their cut," whatever you think that to mean, and targeted Apple, Koch...
Well, looking at their filings, there were 39 in 2021, 35, in 2022, and 28 in 2023. Those cases didn't end in the DoJ "taking their cut," whatever you think that to mean, and targeted Apple, Koch Foods, Jiffy Lube, Activision Blizzard, JetBlue/Spirit, Deere, Raytheon, Saks, etc. These aren't small companies. Your cynicism seems both corrosive and unfounded. Would I like to see more and more aggressive action? Sure. But for you to start on a note of implying that the DoJ is just engaging in quid pro quo, and moving on to say that their efforts are useless is just unhelpful. What is your goal here, beyond engaging in performative cynicism regarding a good thing?
I am well aware of several of these cases and think they absolutely fall under "Taking their cut" given that the actual effect on the consumer has been minimal, if nonexistent. Things like apple...
I am well aware of several of these cases and think they absolutely fall under "Taking their cut" given that the actual effect on the consumer has been minimal, if nonexistent.
Things like apple are why Bell was broken into a thousand pieces, and these days we don't even get close.
My goal is to actually stop applauding hand wringing mediocrity when it comes to one of the largest issues facing our society and demand substantial change and breakups. Dragging any one of these companies through court for several years, only to mildly change their business rather than actually segregate them as they should be, is functionally, yes, taking their cut in my eyes.
The initial filing in US v AT&T was in 1974, and the ultimate break-up did not occur until 1982. That's 8 years between beginning and end. It's unreasonable to criticize cases filed in 2021-2023...
The initial filing in US v AT&T was in 1974, and the ultimate break-up did not occur until 1982. That's 8 years between beginning and end. It's unreasonable to criticize cases filed in 2021-2023 for not resulting in significant consumer facing effects in 2024.
I’ve already mentioned how long these things take to do right. I’m well aware. The fact the only reason this is happening is because of a debacle with a Taylor swift concert doesn’t inspire me...
I’ve already mentioned how long these things take to do right. I’m well aware. The fact the only reason this is happening is because of a debacle with a Taylor swift concert doesn’t inspire me with confidence it was on their docket all along to tackle and isn’t just publicity.
I have been following, admittedly lightly, several of the cases of this administration. You can criticize them for how they’re approaching it (FTC handbag filing being the most recent to cross my radar as, at the minimum , eyebrow raising). I’ve also also mentioned that Biden(and plenty of others in the admin) built their career on being an ally to these companies and I doubt they’re throwing that out now.
Assuming trump doesn’t win and just wipe out most of these cases id still say most are doa or going to be paltry fines with badly worded changes with back doors.
We’ve already seen this with right to repair legislation and cases and I see no reason to think it will be otherwise as it’s been the norm
Remember the vouchers? I had the max number you could get cuz I went to a lot of concerts in my 20s. I couldn't use one of them. I hope this hurts them just as much!
Remember the vouchers? I had the max number you could get cuz I went to a lot of concerts in my 20s. I couldn't use one of them. I hope this hurts them just as much!
I was just reading the New York Times article on the issue. The online ticket scalping angle feels like such a solvable problem. Maybe I'm just ignorant here (and that's highly possible — I don't...
In response to the suit, Live Nation denied that it was a monopoly and said that breaking it up would not result in lower ticket prices or fees. According to the company, artists and sports teams are primarily responsible for setting ticket prices, and other business partners, like venues, take the lion’s share of surcharges.
In a statement, Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs, said that the Justice Department’s suit followed “intense political pressure.”
The government’s case, Mr. Wall added, “ignores everything that is actually responsible for higher ticket prices, from increasing production costs to artist popularity, to 24/7 online ticket scalping that reveals the public’s willingness to pay far more than primary tickets cost.”
The online ticket scalping angle feels like such a solvable problem. Maybe I'm just ignorant here (and that's highly possible — I don't know much about this industry), but couldn't they get around this by having tickets be refundable but nontransferable? If I can't sell my ticket to anyone, scalping can't work. But maybe that would be too proconsumer.
The Justice Department’s latest investigation of Live Nation began in 2022. Live Nation simultaneously ramped up its lobbying efforts, spending $2.4 million on federal lobbying in 2023, up from $1.25 million in 2021, according to filings available through the nonpartisan website OpenSecrets.
In April, the company co-hosted a lavish party in Washington ahead of the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that featured a performance by the country singer Jelly Roll and cocktail napkins that displayed positive facts about Live Nation’s impact on the economy, like the billions it says it pays to artists.
The fact that this is legal just boggles my mind. Granted, I can see why free-speech absolutists would say that not allowing companies to lobby/schmooze would be impacting their free speech, but this just seems like straight up corruption to me. Obviously not effective corruption, given this lawsuit, but corruption nonetheless.
What sort of lines would they need to break it up along to make the industry competitive? Region? Type of event? Venue contracts? What dividing like would they use?
What sort of lines would they need to break it up along to make the industry competitive? Region? Type of event? Venue contracts? What dividing like would they use?
Since internet companies are de facto broken up by region, and the ISP industry is one of the least competitive industries I can think of, I am going to say that would be a poor strategy.
Since internet companies are de facto broken up by region, and the ISP industry is one of the least competitive industries I can think of, I am going to say that would be a poor strategy.
Yeah. The reason I asked was because I genuinely couldn't think of a simple split that would solve the problem. For the venues that the company owns themselves,I guess they could just divide them...
Yeah. The reason I asked was because I genuinely couldn't think of a simple split that would solve the problem. For the venues that the company owns themselves,I guess they could just divide them randomly? Go down the list middle school gym team style with each new company picking one property? Would all the exclusivity agreements with venues be canceled, or just split between the companies.
I'm not at all familiar with how the actually process would work if the court rules in favor of the Justice Department. This will definitely be interesting to watch. Hopefully the news coverage will be good.
I don't know the process, and I don't ever see live shows, but here is what I would do: Venues should be owned separately to remove the vertical integration. I don't think it would be an issue for...
I don't know the process, and I don't ever see live shows, but here is what I would do:
Venues should be owned separately to remove the vertical integration. I don't think it would be an issue for venues in certain areas to be owned by the same company, but they shouldn't be too large. Ticket sales should be broken into at least a handful of companies, and any individual event should be required to sell through multiple channels. Preferably one of those channels should be directly through the venue (website, in person, etc). If these companies want to have stupid pricing strategies, that is fine. As long as there is another company willing to do sane pricing.
I don't know if that strategy would work, but it can't be worse than what we have now.
Breaking up by region doesn't really help, as there is still a local monopoly. Either the artist, venue, or customer needs to be able to choose who to deal with.
Breaking up by region doesn't really help, as there is still a local monopoly. Either the artist, venue, or customer needs to be able to choose who to deal with.
finally
I’ll bet heavily on this is going to basically work out as “where’s our cut” and be done
Has that been what the DoJ has done under Biden in other cases?
What other cases? Things like Amazon, Ticketmaster, Microsoft, Google, Meta and what not all still exist as is. There are so many mega monopolies today it would get exhausting to list them all, and they donate to the dems just as much as the reps.
In fact a huge criticism of biden in the past is that he was one of the establishment dems who tended to champion the larger corporations (see, student loans being guaranteed through bankruptcy).
Bluntly, to poke a hole in ANY of these organizations, it's going to take a fuck ton of time, effort, and fighting, and I don't think that them doing this right before the election (when trump might win and wipe it all out), shows a sincere effort.
I'd be glad to be wrong, but i'm not aware of ANY monopoly breakup by the biden admin anywhere near the scale of ticketmaster. In fact there's currently criticism of them bringing "nuisance" suits that were unwinnable but just "tax" the company. I think that's overselling the issue, but there's absolutely been a lot of cavalier/send a message cases which they've lost.
Well, looking at their filings, there were 39 in 2021, 35, in 2022, and 28 in 2023. Those cases didn't end in the DoJ "taking their cut," whatever you think that to mean, and targeted Apple, Koch Foods, Jiffy Lube, Activision Blizzard, JetBlue/Spirit, Deere, Raytheon, Saks, etc. These aren't small companies. Your cynicism seems both corrosive and unfounded. Would I like to see more and more aggressive action? Sure. But for you to start on a note of implying that the DoJ is just engaging in quid pro quo, and moving on to say that their efforts are useless is just unhelpful. What is your goal here, beyond engaging in performative cynicism regarding a good thing?
I am well aware of several of these cases and think they absolutely fall under "Taking their cut" given that the actual effect on the consumer has been minimal, if nonexistent.
Things like apple are why Bell was broken into a thousand pieces, and these days we don't even get close.
My goal is to actually stop applauding hand wringing mediocrity when it comes to one of the largest issues facing our society and demand substantial change and breakups. Dragging any one of these companies through court for several years, only to mildly change their business rather than actually segregate them as they should be, is functionally, yes, taking their cut in my eyes.
The initial filing in US v AT&T was in 1974, and the ultimate break-up did not occur until 1982. That's 8 years between beginning and end. It's unreasonable to criticize cases filed in 2021-2023 for not resulting in significant consumer facing effects in 2024.
I’ve already mentioned how long these things take to do right. I’m well aware. The fact the only reason this is happening is because of a debacle with a Taylor swift concert doesn’t inspire me with confidence it was on their docket all along to tackle and isn’t just publicity.
I have been following, admittedly lightly, several of the cases of this administration. You can criticize them for how they’re approaching it (FTC handbag filing being the most recent to cross my radar as, at the minimum , eyebrow raising). I’ve also also mentioned that Biden(and plenty of others in the admin) built their career on being an ally to these companies and I doubt they’re throwing that out now.
Assuming trump doesn’t win and just wipe out most of these cases id still say most are doa or going to be paltry fines with badly worded changes with back doors.
We’ve already seen this with right to repair legislation and cases and I see no reason to think it will be otherwise as it’s been the norm
Remember the vouchers? I had the max number you could get cuz I went to a lot of concerts in my 20s. I couldn't use one of them. I hope this hurts them just as much!
I was just reading the New York Times article on the issue.
The online ticket scalping angle feels like such a solvable problem. Maybe I'm just ignorant here (and that's highly possible — I don't know much about this industry), but couldn't they get around this by having tickets be refundable but nontransferable? If I can't sell my ticket to anyone, scalping can't work. But maybe that would be too proconsumer.
The fact that this is legal just boggles my mind. Granted, I can see why free-speech absolutists would say that not allowing companies to lobby/schmooze would be impacting their free speech, but this just seems like straight up corruption to me. Obviously not effective corruption, given this lawsuit, but corruption nonetheless.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/5m8UX
What sort of lines would they need to break it up along to make the industry competitive? Region? Type of event? Venue contracts? What dividing like would they use?
Given how concentrated everything is currently, I think the answer to your question is 'yes'.. as anything will be better than what we have today.
Since internet companies are de facto broken up by region, and the ISP industry is one of the least competitive industries I can think of, I am going to say that would be a poor strategy.
Yeah. The reason I asked was because I genuinely couldn't think of a simple split that would solve the problem. For the venues that the company owns themselves,I guess they could just divide them randomly? Go down the list middle school gym team style with each new company picking one property? Would all the exclusivity agreements with venues be canceled, or just split between the companies.
I'm not at all familiar with how the actually process would work if the court rules in favor of the Justice Department. This will definitely be interesting to watch. Hopefully the news coverage will be good.
I don't know the process, and I don't ever see live shows, but here is what I would do:
Venues should be owned separately to remove the vertical integration. I don't think it would be an issue for venues in certain areas to be owned by the same company, but they shouldn't be too large. Ticket sales should be broken into at least a handful of companies, and any individual event should be required to sell through multiple channels. Preferably one of those channels should be directly through the venue (website, in person, etc). If these companies want to have stupid pricing strategies, that is fine. As long as there is another company willing to do sane pricing.
I don't know if that strategy would work, but it can't be worse than what we have now.
Breaking up by region doesn't really help, as there is still a local monopoly. Either the artist, venue, or customer needs to be able to choose who to deal with.