That's not really possible, because they contractually require venues and performing artists to only perform at their venues
This kind of gross exclusionary contract should be illegal (it's kinda the same BS that Google does with Android OEMs - contractually force them to [1]), but for some reason antitrust avoided acting on the matter (including allowing acquisitions in the space) for quite some time
[1]
> Predicating the availability of any of Google’s apps, including the Google Play Store, on OEMs not taking advantage of the open source nature of Android on devices that will not include Google apps seems much more problematic than Google insisting its apps be distributed in a bundle. The latter is Google’s prerogative; the former is dictating OEM actions just because Google can.
https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-...
Expecting the US government to properly handle monopolies and anti-trust issues is a fool's errand. It's like saying the US government should solve the issue of gun proliferation in the US: it's simply not going to, in our lifetimes.
They now, having merged with LiveNation, have effective ownership of all major and semi-major venues around the country. They also aren't just doing concerts, they're doing sporting events and other live entertainment as well.
They aren't going anywhere. They are just too big, and too ingrained.
That's not really possible, because they contractually require venues and performing artists to only perform at their venues
This kind of gross exclusionary contract should be illegal (it's kinda the same BS that Google does with Android OEMs - contractually force them to [1]), but for some reason antitrust avoided acting on the matter (including allowing acquisitions in the space) for quite some time
[1] > Predicating the availability of any of Google’s apps, including the Google Play Store, on OEMs not taking advantage of the open source nature of Android on devices that will not include Google apps seems much more problematic than Google insisting its apps be distributed in a bundle. The latter is Google’s prerogative; the former is dictating OEM actions just because Google can. https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-...
Our options shouldn’t be see no concerts from successful musicians or pay monopoly pricing. This is something government should solve.
Expecting the US government to properly handle monopolies and anti-trust issues is a fool's errand. It's like saying the US government should solve the issue of gun proliferation in the US: it's simply not going to, in our lifetimes.
I don’t think that’s accurate. They’ve successfully handled plenty of anti trust issues in the past and very recently got on this one.
3 replies →
On the contrary, the US government is probably a lot easier to influence than an entrenched monopoly.
1 reply →
You're right, of course, those shouldn't be our options. But that's just how it is. If you aren't willing to stop playing, the game will never end.
Again, not true, that's a false dichotomy. Political pressure is an alternative. The justice department is already suing. Clearly it can be done.
You writing your congressperson is more likely (albeit, still not at all likely) to make a difference than you not going to your annual concert.
That might have been true in decades past.
They now, having merged with LiveNation, have effective ownership of all major and semi-major venues around the country. They also aren't just doing concerts, they're doing sporting events and other live entertainment as well.
They aren't going anywhere. They are just too big, and too ingrained.
While this is literally true, solutions in the form of "if everyone would just X" are not solutions at all.
That's why they've done so much to force performers to use them.