Message from @TEABAG!!!
Discord ID: 606233986909470720
"Stagnating the movie industry" is entirely subjective
"Fuck up property/IP" they are facing backlash, and people can still create their own films anyway
"Blocking competition" citation needed
Where is the poetic licence if you have monopolies?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stagnation
```a failure to develop, progress, or advance:
periods of economic stagnation followed by bursts of growth.
the state or quality of being or feeling sluggish and dull:
Happily, they have been able to avoid stagnation in their ten-year marriage.```
the 4th definition is subjective, i agree, however the third is not, can you state the last 'new' ip disney has put out recently? i'm not that good at memory so i'm not a good person to ask,however I can tell you that it's mostly remakes now,
"They are facing backlash." Oh yeah sure sure, backlash that is frequently ignored and substituted for the loud minority that match their specific political views
"Blocking competition" It doesn't have to be active, you can passively block competition by simply being so big that everyone uses you and therefore nobody is willing to switch
I just think you have not thought this through at all @ETBrooD because you're quite happy to have the same message pumped to you. Its not how diversity works. I like independent bodies , and I liked Pixar animation . That broke the mold . But, what you are dealing here is stagnation. Competition, means , a new form of art or something new.
@Holo shit you are so my best friend ! We were typing the same thing together
Passively blocking competition is not a thing
it's hard to have a competitor when you've already been operating at a loss, EG youtube. Youtube operates at a MASSIVE loss right now, no company or startup is going to be able to compete with youtube simply because the barrier for entry is too damn high
If you're first to arrive, then it's your right to stay
No it's bollucks that's why Hollywood went crash. <:Veemote:501103628883591188>
That's not true at all lol... if you're not providing a service for your customers then there should be room for competition, but if competition can't compete, even if they offer a better service, that's bad
Disney is not blocking alternative service this way
Yeah but you can't do that with a monopoly because you end up not giving a shit about your consumers
They are quite often offering terrible deals to theaters, and they have faced backlash for that, too. Some theaters have strictly refused to take such deals.
i mean, if you want, i can do a deep search, but i'll bet money there's at least one virtual monopoly in this chart https://storage.googleapis.com/titlemax-media/1c8ace8f-every-company-disney-owns-13_pageversion-lg.jpg
It no longer produces high end products . It just mass produces junk. Ask Trump to do the analysis because I am sure , he would agree this is what's happened to the British markets .
They deplete the markets and then there is no growth or room for improvement.
I know Disney is a monopoly, my argument is that monopolies are not a bad thing
they aren't if there is room for competition
You're looking at it the wrong way in my opinion
There is room for competition though
Well you like to be the opposite of normal . You like to be argumentative without sound based arguments.
No there isn't if they take over or merge .
Then the legislation they come out with polarises those companies .
You can compete with Disney, you just don't become as big as Disney right now, because either you give up along the way or you get bought up, but nothing's actively stopping you.
There's a difference between being a strong competitor and being a competitor
That's what they said about Hollywood and it went bust.
There's always room for improvement when you have another big in the picture.
The issue with Google, Facebook, Twitter is not that they're virtual monopolies
The issue is they're protected from lawsuits because they're mislabeled as platforms when they're actually behaving like publishers.
IBM and silicon valley ... I rest my case
Okay so lets look at it they way i'm trying to look at it.
I set up a lemonade stand on a corner street. I operate for 5 years. I now have a nice shack, comfortable seating, a ceiling fan, and an employee
Now in order to maximize profits I degrade the quality of my lemonade and also reduce it's price. It's not unfair but it's also not that great of lemonade. I'm the only place around, where else are you going to get lemonade?
Now someone says 'fuck you and your lemonade I'm making my own' and they make a small stand opposite of mine. They have to sell their lemonade at a higher price because otherwise they may lose money. Their lemonade is of a much better quality, they are much more responsive and respectful to their customers.
However they don't get that many people because, everyone already visits me. I don't care about him, i'm not actively trying to shut him down, however he'll get stangled simply because, even though my lemonade isn't as good, it's much cheaper in a much better environment with everyone who's been buying it for the past 5 years.
Then you're not in demand enough, tough luck, fit your product to meet the demand then
There's nothing stopping you from doing that
@Holo that's it, and this is what happens when the big boys start to get legal and then push people around with their mergers . Because you can buy them out and claim copyrights and persue legal action.
Which means, poetic licence is not available in the arts industry and everything becomes a rerun.
"push people around with their mergers" you're talking nonsense
so lets put it even farther, i expand my store to sell other things than lemonade and we'll increase the quality of the lemonade 10 fold.
I'm a shit owner, i'm a bit rude and can be a bit preachy to my customers, but my lemonade is the absolute best, so people come anyways.
Now in order to make my lemonade the best, i have to use the best ingredients, which raises the cost, but i don't want to, so i reduce the cost so i actually lose 10% on every lemonade i sell.
I make that 10% back though from the sale of other items in my store.
Now same dude on the other side of the street. He is much nicer, a great person, he's willing to do anything for his customers. He can't compete with me though, because I operate a loss, and am fine because of my other sales.
So he goes out of business without me doing anything
Copyrights are an issue, yes. But that's a different problem
we'll assume the quality of the lemonade is the same
Dude
You're just proving that competition works, you're just making it so the competitors aren't offering the product that is in ACTUAL demand