back to article Antitrust this! EU Commish goes after HOLLYWOOD’s big guns

After an 18-month investigation, the European Commission on Thursday decided to file antitrust charges against US movie studios 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers, Sony Pictures, Paramount, NBCUniversal, and Sky TV. Competition head honcho, Margrethe Vestager, has sent a so-called Statement of Objections to Sky and Co, usually …

  1. Vimes

    many arguing that it protects minority language European films from Hollywood competition

    How does turning away people wanting to hand over money protect smaller companies from Hollywood?

    It's not just within the EU that geo-blocking is an issue either. Personally I'd still like an explanation as to why British programs like Midsomer Murders & Poirot amongst others are available in the US on netflix but not the UK. In some cases BBC programs also ended up available in the US first too.

    1. streaky

      Geographical sports rights, TV show rights, movie rights; the works - this all should be up for grabs. If all this is fixed piracy will mysteriously drop and nobody will know why, but it's important to note that the two things are in no way related. You have no data proving that.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mr Orlowski was sticking out his bottom lip at this not long ago and trying to defend the indefensible:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/06/eu_gropes_around_for_geoblocking_face_saver/

    If you disagree with Andrew on monopolistic copyright abuse then the thought police suddenly arrive and erase you from history.

    I'm 100% with the EU on this.

    1. NinjasFTW

      agreed,

      the only posts i've ever had refused at this site were ones that questioned Andrews stance/logic/impartialness.

      interesting to see if this one gets through :)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yea, I'd loved to see someone rewrite this article from Andrew's point of view.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        AO is probably working on it right now. We should see it in a couple of days.

  3. John Hawkins
    Thumb Up

    If this means I can get test cricket on tele in Sweden...

    ..without having to resort to hacks or dodgy streaming, then I'm all for it.

  4. Julian 8 Silver badge

    torrents

    The the commish needs to add is

    "by removing geolocking, a number of home users will stop using torrents to download tv programmes and films as the current reason for them to revert to 'torrents' will be removed"

    afterall, isn't stopping torrents what all these comany's want ?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What's not to like?

    At the risk of coming over all Tim Worstall, a bigger market with more competing suppliers should lead to wider choice and lower prices ... right?

    1. TheProf

      Re: What's not to like?

      Or everyone will end up paying the the same price as the highest priced country.

      1. bigtimehustler

        Re: What's not to like?

        Well, that is likely to be us here in the UK, so it can only really stay the same or get better for us.

      2. MrWibble

        Re: What's not to like?

        Or maybe you'll need to subscription to Sky, BT, Virgin, TalkTalk, Discovery, and god knows who else in order to get the same content as you currently get from just Sky (e.g. recent Discovery/Eurosport purchase of Olympic rights)

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: What's not to like?

      At the risk of coming over all Tim Worstall

      Oh, I think you'll find he's got all the arguments in favour of discretional pricing and how it maximises value.

      The fact is that Hollywood has for years been dumping content on poorer countries (and tolerating piracy) to get people used to their superior (well, it generally is) product so that they can raise prices in the future. For some content owners, I'm thinking of channels like HBO, however, this could be a boon as it could allow them to cut out the middlemen: sell to the whole of Europe via a single subsidiary in, say, Luxembourg or Ireland.

  6. g e

    For its part, Disney said

    We. Are. Disney.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: For its part, Disney said

      Yes; "For its part, Disney said “blah blah self-serving unintelligible bullshit, and we will oppose the proposed action vigorously"."

      1. VinceH

        Re: For its part, Disney said

        “the impact of the Commission’s analysis is destructive of consumer value our profits and we will oppose the proposed action vigorously"

        There. Fixed it for them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Devil

          Re: For its part, Disney said

          I think its more like

          "For its part, Disney said “the impact of the Commission’s analysis is destructive of consumer value"

          The consumers would turn worthless?!

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: For its part, Disney said

      Unlike the USA, Disney is not going to get a Mickey Mouse copyright act here and keep everything past Steamboat Willie out of the public domain.

      Where I grew up, one of the phrases bandied about from time to time was "American Cultural Imperialism"

      Which means what it sounds like.

  7. Colin 29

    BBC?

    Does this action cover the fact that I can't legally watch BBC content from their website and iPlayer when abroad despite owning a valid TV License? Or is that strictly a BBC issue?

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: BBC?

      You can legally watch it, the BBC simply make it technically difficult. If you find a way around it you are breaking no law.

      The Beeb of course don't want you to do so, because they make a lot of money selling that content to to other TV companies abroad, and if everyone can stream direct from iPlayer that income will drop.

  8. Dazed and Confused
    Happy

    Stating the obvious

    Big film studios do deals with national broadcasters that limit, by country, where films can be broadcast. Vestager believes that such licensing agreements restrict access, limit cross-border competition, and are a form of anti-competitive price fixing.

    Yes, that is exactly what they are designed to be.

    How long it's taken till now for those in power to notice?

    Doesn't just apply to films. How about all forms of electronically distributed entertainment. Wouldn't effect me personally, but how about sport?

    This isn't a new issue. I remember back in the mid 70s going to a judo competition near Rotterdam and staying with a Dutch family and being surprised to see them watching tele in English, They said nearly everyone in their area had a big aerial point out west so they could see British tele as well as their own local stuff.

    Doing away with geo blocking will lose some business a shed load of money. The question is whether their interests and their profits should be allowed to trump the law. Businesses are quick enough to extol the virtues of globalisation when it makes them cash, they don't tend to like the flip side though. But there are businesses that will lose out. Using sport as an example, I seem to remember there was a case involving the English Premier League and Greece, so using that. Its seems there are massive numbers of people in the UK who are prepared to spend a fortune for the coverage of this football, allowing Sky to pay the league a staggering amount of money. It would seem a reasonable bet that people in Greece won't be as desperate to see English clubs playing, so they get the coverage at a lower price since they are unlikely to fork over the same amount as English fans. But they do pay something, so this increases the total take for Sky and therefore the league. It's basic economics, but it would also seem to be totally illegal.

    So it profit more important or the principal of free trade where it benefits consumers rather than just businesses. Of course consumers get to vote, but politicians seem to have given up thinking that voters are important, whereas companies exert influence in other ways, which politicians seem to find more important these days.

  9. Master Luke

    Not to mention.....

    DVD and BluRay Region coding?

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Not to mention.....

      WRT DVD region coding: The Australians already ruled it an illegal restraint of trade back in 1994.

      They had to repeal laws prohibiting region locks when they joined a "free trade" agreement with the USA.

      Whose benefit was that agreement for?

  10. Kane
    Unhappy

    While we're about it...

    ...can we also do away with the release schedule delays between overseas tv shows/films? I know that over recent years it's gotten better, certainly with multinational film releases, but there is a god-awful delay between the release of a tv series in the States and it's subsequent release in the UK.

  11. Spaceman Spiff

    For its part, Disney said “the impact of the Commission’s analysis is destructive of consumer value and we will oppose the proposed action vigorously".

    Right! It is more or less destructive of Disney's excessive profits by geo-limiting film/dvd usage.

    1. BuckeyeB

      Who gets to determine whether Disney's profits are excessive ?

  12. Detective Emil
    Paris Hilton

    Whittle while you work?

    The opening paragraph does not list Disney among the Commission's targets, yet the end of the story quotes Disney bluster. What's going on?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like