Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wouldn’t Disney just set an insanely high license fee in this case though? If they’re just paying it to themselves then they can make it high enough that nobody else can justify paying it.




This problem was also an issue for movies and theaters. The "fix" is to ensure theaters (the distributors) cannot be owned by, nor can they own production studios.

So under this rule, if disney wanted to have their own streaming service and used a high licensing fee to try stop competitors from their content, they'd pay high taxes due to the high licensing fees making huge (fake) profits for the parent company - it'd end in losses, as the streaming service (as a separate company) cannot bill their cost onto the parent company (to offset the profit). It's as if the tax man gets to sit in the middle, and siphon part of that license fee for free. Disney shareholders would never stand for that, and so they won't do it.


Could borrow the concept of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non Discrimatory IIRC) from tech companies licensing patents?

I don't know much about it and I do not think it is perfect, but from what I remember from discussions here it prevents certain forms of abuse.


I don’t think such an obvious scheme could escape the view of the monopoly laws could it?

I don't think you can have a monopoly on stuff you own. That's like saying I have a monopoly on my own house.

Ha. Guess you’ve not much grasp on how competition law works huh

I'm glad one of us explained our perspective, at least.

That’s what I come here for. To have stupid people who haven’t read up on their topic explain their perspective to me.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: