Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Would End of Film Studio Consent Decrees Mean?
In November, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked a federal district court to terminate the Paramount Consent Decrees, a set of rules governing major film studios for the last 70 years. In effect, these rules prohibited movie studios from owning downstream movie theaters and banned a variety of vertical agreements, such as block booking — the practice of bundling multiple films into one theater license.
This decision comes after the DOJ said last year that it planned to review almost 1,300 "legacy" antitrust orders to determine which are "outdated" and do little more than "clog court dockets, create unnecessary uncertainty for businesses or … elicit anticompetitive market conditions." See, DOJ Office of Public Affairs, "Department of Justice Announces Initiative to Terminate 'Legacy' Antitrust Judgments" (April 25, 2018). Pursuant to that process, Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim explained that the DOJ found the decrees "have served their purpose, and their continued existence may actually harm American consumers by standing in the way of innovative business models for the exhibition of America's greatest creative films." See, DOJ Office of Public Affairs, "Department of Justice Files Motion to Terminate Paramount Consent Decrees" (Nov. 22, 2019).
The DOJ emphasized that significant structural changes in the industry, coupled with technological innovations, new movie platforms, new business models and changing consumer demands no longer make the decrees necessary. In other words, going to a movie theater is no longer the only way to see the newest film what with consumers accessing movies from just a few clicks of their TVs, tablets or phones. As a result of this drastic shift in the ways consumers access movies, the DOJ believes a change is needed in how the market is regulated.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.