SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the too-big-to-care-about-the-customer dept.
AT&T is expected to announce on Saturday evening that it will purchase Time Warner Inc. for over $80 billion:
AT&T Inc. has reached an agreement to buy Time Warner Inc. for $86 billion, according to a person familiar with the plans, in a deal that would transform the phone company into a media giant. The wireless carrier agreed to pay $107.50 a share, the person said. The deal is half cash and half stock, according to people familiar with the transaction.
[...] For Time Warner, the deal represents a victory for [Chief Executive Mr. Jeff Bewkes], 64, who took some heat from investors for rebuffing a takeover bid two years ago from 21st Century Fox at $85 a share. [...] A merger of the companies would be the most ambitious marriage of content and distribution in the media and telecom industries since Comcast Corp.'s purchase of NBCUniversal and would create a behemoth to rival that cable giant. A rigorous regulatory review is expected and the acquisition of Time Warner likely wouldn't close until late 2017, people close to the process said.
Donald Trump has said that he would block the proposed merger and other media company mergers.
Also at Washington Post, NYT, CNN, and Reuters.
Update: Confirmed by AT&T.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:55PM
That subject line up there is what we need as Federal law.
If you're a provider of any kind - internet, phone, cable, satellite, telepathy - you don't get to own any copyright. Go ahead and make stuff if you want, but it's immediately in the public domain. Any and every time content ownership overlaps with modes to provide that content, you have an inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest. They want you viewing / buying their content, and ensure incentives make you do this.
The only reason these consolidations are happening is because they want to lock up as much content behind their already-illegal monopolies to deliver it. I'm putting aside for the moment the fact that in today's modern world, a total copyright term of 5 years would likely be excessive. Returning to rational copyright would go a long way to fixing this problem, but in the meantime, let's put hard fucking walls between anyone who wants to own content and those who deliver it.
This is hilariously anti-competitive. We need to go the exact opposite direction and break ALL of this up. The lines are extremely clear and easy to define: Studio on one side, cable/wireless/wired on the other.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:30PM
That's a big deal for broad-reaching services like Internet access, not so much for entertainment providers. I have a huge problem with Internet providers merging and removing competition but I have no problem whatsoever with say Netflix producing their own shows. As always, it's entirely about competition.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Sunday October 23 2016, @08:50PM
That's a fair point. I think my wording just wasn't as good as it could have been.
The intent of this is to entirely separate anyone producing content from DELIVERY. Netflix produces their own content - no problem. They deliver it through ISPs or the postal service, though, so I have no problem with that.
The problem arises when corporate non-entities have an arsenal of content they purportedly "own", locked permanently away from the public domain against the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Thanks to rent-seeking on that arsenal, they end up with far too much money and begin consolidating "ownership" into larger arsenals so they can demand more rent. Repeat a few times and you have Disney owning all of Marvel, buying Pixar, owning half of the cable channels you didn't even realize along with ESPN.
Now, all of that is bad enough. But these increasingly few corporate non-entities aren't satisfied with that. They want to own the pipe, too, as evidenced by deals like this one and that's where we need to make our stand. The real battle needs to be fought, initially, over the last mile. After that's won, we dismantle the abomination that is current Copyright which exists in baldfaced, repugnant opposition to the Constitution.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 23 2016, @09:22PM
Agreed then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @08:38PM
There is precedent for your point.
SCOTUS said that movie studios owning movie theaters was an unconstitutional monopoly in 1948. [wikipedia.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]