Originally Posted by scho63:
CNBC just had a young idiot DEI hire on to talk about the lawsuit and she couldn't answer any questions about quantifying the damage.
All she did was say "This is the beginning, not the end. There will be discovery."
IF they succeed in breaking up Live Nation and TicketMaster, within 5-10 years the combined market share and control of the market from the two entities will be much greater than today. [Reply]
It's not a monopoly in legal terms. It's like people arguing that Walmart is a monopoly. You have other choices in the marketplace. Artists have other venues they can choose in a market. You don't have to play Sprint Center - you can play Arrowhead, Kauffman, Sandstone, or even Joe's neighborhood bar. The fees are bullshit and almost racketeering but legally it's okay. I just don't see much of a case legally. Shitty business practices but not much from a legal standpoint. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
It's not a monopoly in legal terms. It's like people arguing that Walmart is a monopoly. You have other choices in the marketplace. Artists have other venues they can choose in a market. You don't have to play Sprint Center - you can play Arrowhead, Kauffman, Sandstone, or even Joe's neighborhood bar. The fees are bullshit and almost racketeering but legally it's okay. I just don't see much of a case legally. Shitty business practices but not much from a legal standpoint.
..seems like they were basically calling out the fact they were playing with fire by allowing the merger in the first place, with some guidelines on how to play nice, and they think it's been ignored. [Reply]
..seems like they were basically calling out the fact they were playing with fire by allowing the merger in the first place, with some guidelines on how to play nice, and they think it's been ignored.
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
It's not a monopoly in legal terms. It's like people arguing that Walmart is a monopoly. You have other choices in the marketplace. Artists have other venues they can choose in a market. You don't have to play Sprint Center - you can play Arrowhead, Kauffman, Sandstone, or even Joe's neighborhood bar. The fees are bullshit and almost racketeering but legally it's okay. I just don't see much of a case legally. Shitty business practices but not much from a legal standpoint.
About the only hope is getting them for controlling the talent and what venues they can use and how they control what gets back to the talent, especially with their "loans". But it is hard to find companies that haven't earned distaste more than these. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
It's not a monopoly in legal terms. It's like people arguing that Walmart is a monopoly. You have other choices in the marketplace. Artists have other venues they can choose in a market. You don't have to play Sprint Center - you can play Arrowhead, Kauffman, Sandstone, or even Joe's neighborhood bar. The fees are bullshit and almost racketeering but legally it's okay. I just don't see much of a case legally. Shitty business practices but not much from a legal standpoint.
So I read that the Live Nation/TM industrial complex owns 50 of the 60 amphitheaters in the US. If you are an artist too big for clubs and too small for arenas/stadiums you don't have other choices.
You have to enter long term contracts with Live Nation or you don't have an appropriate size venue to play at.
Even the 10 other sites have to play by TM's rules or they might get black listed and not be able to book artists. [Reply]