Hulu.com May Be Target of Antitrust Attack
by S.T. Karnick
As is sadly the case for all good things, the video website Hulu.com may well come under attack by the government, specifically in the form of antitrust action by the Obama administration.
Socialism’s great horde of media apologists has begun a strong drumbeat calling for the U.S. government to go after Hulu, the immensely and increasingly successful source of online streaming media content.
Cord Blomquist of the Competitive Enterprise Institute documents the socialists’ campaign for a government attack on Hulu in an excellent article at the Technology Liberation Front website. “Many media commentators are already using the kind of language we associate with past media antitrust cases,” Blomquist notes.
Blomquist’s conclusion is correct and sobering:
Hulu’s runaway success over the last year and its growing number of exclusivity agreeements mean that it could see some of the added scrutiny that Mr. Obama believes is necessary in the world of media. Of course, there are thousands of arguments as to why an actual antitrust case would lack any real merit—the availability of media in other formats such as broadcast or DVD, the number of non-exclusive deals Hulu has signed, the low barriers to entry and low costs for others to offer similar streaming video services—yet these arguments have failed to impress judges and administrations in the past.
Blomquist is right. As always, the overwhelming desire of socialists is for unlimited power. When socialists find a successful enterprise, their first instinct is to tame it—and if they fail at that, they will surely destroy it.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
78 Comments
The only thing that might protect hulu is the fact the media there and those heavily involved lean heavily democrat anyway. I mean, look at the political content on the site, they practically have a channel dedicated to fearless leader. On a certain level, it's ironic, but I don't think the Hollywood folks who are involved with hulu would even realize the irony.
But I thought Alec Baldwin did their commercials? It… makes no SENSE…!
Damn! I went to the site expecting Hulu Girls in grass skirts, Damn!
Government run amok. We the people either rise up and take back our country or this kind of thing will continue.
http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com
You owe me another keyboard….and another coffee…..
Well they're aliens…..how long before INS gets involved??
Obama is going to give everybody free coffee and keyboards.
And by "free" you mean we the taxpayers will have to fund a special "Coffee and Keyboard" branch of ACORN….
Two points. First, anti-trust suits are extremely difficult to win. I can't see how Hulu loses this one.
Secondly, I think that conservatives should be careful not to have a knee-jerk "anti-anti-trust" mentality. Many Republicans seem to think that anti-trust laws are a plot to crush private enterprise. But that's really not true. As proponents of free markets, the one thing we should be most opposed to (besides government control) is a true monopoly. Monopolies are as bad for competition and the market as government regulation (in fact, government regulation is often used to create/protect monopolies).
Moreover, contrary to popular belief, the anti-trust laws are extremely well tailored to reach only truly "anti-competitive" practices. There are some abuses, but by and large, the free market has always benefited from these actions.
Yes, the irony is somewhat tasty- Hulu is created and run by the secular left that adores the vapid dilletante who now wants to eviscerate their successful enterprise. We are a clever lot; more so than the socialist ideologues who now are drunk with an ephemeral power… and, as such we will continue to find work arounds despite Hulu's fate.
Sic Semper Tyrannus…
Interesting that all of the actors who've done the Hulu commercials all voted for Pres. Obama, presumably. What's their story now?
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Any time a new enterprise becomes successful beyond a certain scale of size, leftards will want to find some way for their shysters to make some money off of it. "Government oversight" is just congressional code for, "we want our lawyers to be filching money out of this."
Don't forget the union employee that will have to operate the keyboard for you, since if you do it you will be working out of class. And don't even get me started on the bureaucracy surrounding the coffee.
It's all fun and games until someone makes a buck, and then the gloves are off, and the socialist rear their ugly heads.
They rear they're ugly heads and extend their grubby paws into your wallet to spread the wealth…..
If Obama has his way, it won't pay to be successful in America.
What's even more ironic about this is that the people behind Hulu are all huge supporters of Obama. Maybe their checks bounced?
What's even more ironic about this is that the people behind Hulu are all huge supporters of Obama. Maybe their checks bounced?
Yeah, and don't forget, these keyboards will be made by government employees. So don't expect a complete alphabet.
Interesting to see where this actually goes. Andrew is right, of course, no need for any knee-jerk reactions. Hulu is such a lefty site, should be a good show to see how this shakes out.
Hulu has consistently been pro-Obama, pro-environmentalist, pro-gay, etc. The most popular programs on Hulu (as advertised on its homepage) are The Daily Show, SNL and The Family Guy, all lefty staples.
How funny, now the owners of Hulu can see how the left pays back its friends.
Uhh, that would apparently be never, Hank.
I'm with you on the spirit of anti-trust laws, but it's not far fetched to believe that the intent of those laws could change when implemented by this administration. As Mr. Karnick said:
"When socialists find a successful enterprise, their first instinct is to tame it—and if they fail at that, they will surely destroy it."
As we know they will remove all G's, W's and B's. Then they will surely be rid of Bush forever
Supporting Obama in the election isn't quite working out for a lot of people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northam...
"It's all fun and games until someone makes a buck."
I'll make a poster out of that for the 2012 election.
Ain't irony grand?
They will have to keep the G's and and B's. How else could they spell "Brought to you by obama." or is he planning on just shortening his name to god.
Shocking…..
run with it and win.
Oh it'll be complete, but you'll have to hit "1" for English first…..
True. And, as I noted, anti-trust laws can be abused — especially in private anti-trust suits brought by competitors.
But, by and large, both the intent and the practice of anti-trust laws have been very pro-competitive and pro-free markets. Look at the classic example of anti-trust done right: the break up of ATT. Phone service had been entirely stagnant and expensive in this country when ATT had a monopoly. After that was broken up, the telecommunications market took off and look at where we are today.
This is certainly a promising policy that will spur innovation.
P.S. I'm just discussing anti-trust generally, I don't have much or an opinion about anti-trust action against Hulu's specifically.
An evil plot to destroy the world indeed
I also consider the AT&T case to be the ideal example of anti-trust law in action, but that comparison is also what makes this Hulu scenario strange. The barriers of entry are low, and the contracts can be non-exclusive. Maybe it's because Hulu got the best content first. Then we'll need a judge to rule which content is premium premium content.
If it goes to court, what would likely happen is that they'll limit the number of exclusive contracts a distributor (Hulu) can make.
the single most entertaining thing about the left is watching them eat their own once they achieve power. No liberal orthodoxy can be enough, any discordant conduct, as the female apparatchik in 'Dr Zhivago' tells Yuri after he retuns to find his own home occupied by Reds- “Your behavior is noted, comrade…” will, of course, not be tolerated. Unlike the true big tent of half-fullpositive conservatism, the half-empty crowd hoards their own treasureand covets others. So, dear fellow, take your enjoyment where you can get it…
So true. . . there is nothing more dangerous to a liberal that another liberal with power, especially when the two liberals have slightly different views.
Kind of like Obama's vendetta against the BCS. "No one else is allowed to succeed but me!"
They will create a new symbol created just for Him. The One formally known as Obama. It will be a symbol of all that is right (or left) and good in the world. So it will be written, so it will be done…
"Cord Blomquist of the Competitive Enterprise Institute documents the socialists’ campaign for a government attack on Hulu"
The article states nothing of the sort and you should immediately retract this lie. Furthermore, from the SAME article that you posted:
"However, in the same interview, Mr. Obama gives us reason to believe that a FTC or DoJ under his guidance might not pursue such action against Hulu. As part of his answer to a question on net neutrality, Mr. Obama said:
The Internet is a powerful, democratizing tool. There are very low entry barriers for the delivery of services over the Internet, and public debate is unfettered by either the network owner or any single dominant voice."
This blog is an epic failure. BTW, aren't you the same fascist who argued the FCC should censor foul language and boobs from TV? You are a walking hypocrisy.
Anti-trust laws are anti-trust laws. But this streaming media won't be locked back up in a box or something, If Hulu is prevented from expanding then others will come along.
I see both sides of the issue with free video on the internet. YouTube, for instance, has great potential but most stuff is up without approval from the producers, directors, writers and actors who made them – hence they get no share of profits from people enjoying it. And so the content gets taken down.
I think Hulu at this point has an issue with residuals. So that the creators don't have contracts regarding new media presentation of their work, This is an issue.
But anyway there is nothing to stop streaming or stop people from seeing most anything they want on the internet – legal or not. Although, there may come a time when we have to pay a subscription to get the good images. Long story short, no anti-trust laws will stop technology – it's the money issues and the rights issues that slows it down.
indeed. It never changes; one of the true absolutes of socialism. Hard for freemen to grasp- we know nothing of 'lockstep' unless on a drill team… so, sit back and allow the seething masses of
selfish secularists to continually define 'shallow'…
A good basis for a symbol just for him, would be the screw. Maybe not a screw is just too useful.
their srory will become thus: as much as they may hate us, they hate deviations from the lemming mentality even more; inevitably they hate themselves so much ( they think exhaling is killing the planet, remember) that they hate each other the most… lot of 'hate' there, dontcha think?
Might I suggest we move pass the "socialist" tag? First, it's inaccurate. Actual socialists want government ownership of the means of production, not just control. As Anthony Dolan, the guy who coined the phrase "evil empire" for the Soviet Union said, the system the Democrats have been advocating for years is democratic fascism. Or if you prefer, corporatism which Mussolini defined as fascist. If this is still too strong, then might I suggest "statist", because the battle lines right now are pretty clearly drawn in terms of a massive control state and a smaller less controlling state.
You said something like: "Blah blah blah. . . you're all fascists. . . blah blah blah. . . with a wooden spoon. . . blah blah blah. . . my mother never loved me."
I laughed at your stupidity.
Now go learn to bake pie.
hmmmm… lemon merengue?- no, strawberry? no… rhubarb? That's it! rhubarb! Yes, socialist sweets from the the purveyor of pie. No, the left doesn't want to censor political dialogue… no, sure they don't…
How about a dollar sign half-inside a toilet, with the toilet seat colored like the "O" from the famous campaign buttons, and a journalist praying to the toilet — prayer rug style.
That should do it. Wish I could draw.
uhm.. facist.. is your reading comprehension THAT bad?
First part of the article:
The Disney deal makes it far more plausible that Hulu—mocked when it launched only last year for its name and its business plan—will dominate online streaming of premium content.
Then the comment that initiated S.T.'s comment:
We’re going to have an antitrust division in the Justice Department that actually believes in antitrust law.
Under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms…
– note the article was refering to Hulu, so according to the article, Hulu is one of these handful of firms…
Yes, the second part was added . in other words, once again, President Obama is trying to talk both sides of an argument and hopes nobody calls him on it.
I would love to see that. I wonder if anyone here can draw that?
So who else fits your definition of fascist? The political party that raises taxes on lifestyle choices like smoking and trans fats? The president who is trying to form a mandatory, uniformed civil service corps as large as the U.S. military? The president who is using the stimulus as a Trojan horse to usurp shareholder control of financial firms and industry?
Naw, that doesn't hint at fascism. That's just CHANGE!
The Fascists and FDR were in favor of monopolies. As long as the government ran them. They both believed competition was the main problem with the economy, therefore FDR violated monopoly and anti-trust laws in the name of controlling prices and wages. Fascio is an italian word that means 'bundle' because you 'bundle' industries together. In south America, instead of calling it corporatism, they're calling it industrialism.
The reason WW2 brought us out of the depression wasn't the spending, it was the fact that FDR could no longer restrain industry.
Mr. Price, while I agree that monopolies in general are bad, I do however believe that the market helps create by the basic supply and demand precept. I see Microsoft as a natural monopoly and generally good for economic well being in much the same way as General Dynamics. Hulu being targeted strikes me as sour grapes by their competitors. While their commercials annoy me, I know who they are.
A look at Obama's Fascist tendencies . . .
http://popmodal.com/video/2507/Obama-Fascism
the trouble with fascists is that they either don't know they are one (progressives? give us a break. We need to take that word back) or they won't admit it. The Billary are classic fascists, and Barry O as well.
They like power, power is good. Absolute power is even better, But they like 'stuff' too, and some one has to make their Armani suits and Lexus RX400 hybrids. So, fascism it is…
Monopolistic behavior is never good precisely because the monopoly is not subject to the constraints of supply and demand. When there are no other alternatives, i.e. the monopoly controls the supply 100%, demand is irrelevant. That's why monopolies are so profitable. That's also why they don't innovate — why mess with a good thing, especially when you don't have to.
Microsoft is not a monopoly in the classic sense. Whether it is sufficiently dominant to be akin to a monopoly is questionable as well. Microsoft is losing market share each year to unix and Apple, and has an extremely hard time competing with its own prior products. Not to mention that software is always one innovation away from becoming obsolete.
General Dynamics is in no sense a monopoly. There are thousands of competitors to GD, and several huge ones (NorthrupG, LM, Raytheon, BAE, GE, Boeing, and a half dozen more). Moreover, these companies play in a heavily regulated area where the government is the monopolist and it sets the terms of the interaction (including price). None of these companies has any ability to act like a monopoly.
I realized almost as fast as I hit the button that GD was a bad example. Your point of the government however is appropriate. And damn it I stand humbled. Sheesh, lawyers…
.
Where is the sentry that was supposed to be posted? This troll shows up still not bearing pie. Just goes to show that we will let anything in here.
Not humbled friend. . . no intent to humble.
We're just having a discussion.
My understanding on Hulu was that the creative director for the upstart company actually mandated that they needed to have ALL the shows from the networks who signed contracts with them available for viewing. This was something that totally threw of the Network Execs, but in the end, they signed the contracts and made available all the content that Hulu wanted. Hulu understood that in order to be successful, they couldn't JUST have the few shows that networks are willing to offer, and it worked. I am not a lawyer, but the fact is the networks SIGNED contracts with Hulu, so thats on them. Cable and Directv have on demand from many networks which allows essentially the same thing, yet one can see that the offerings on the "on demand services" offered by cable and sattelite and also Xbox live are weak because of that very lack of content. I cant see Hulu getting in trouble when there are signed contracts and there are other competitors doing it, but I will say that I hope that the execs realize that the success of Hulu should make them rethink their on demand strategy. I still don't like watching TV on my computer, so I stream with roku, Netflix, amazon, and xbox live. But I still have to PAY for some of the same things that I would get for free on Directv on demand or Hulu or netflix, which is just silly.
"As proponents of free markets, the one thing we should be most opposed to (besides government control) is a true monopoly"
That's just the thing. "True monopoly" only happens with government intervention. Anti-trust theory extends from perfect competition theory, which has little to no resemblance to reality. In the real world, supply restriction and price fixing just don't happen (for long), and almost every action supposedly "in restraint of trade" has some economic value that is beyond the courts to appreciate.
FYI the new york times wants to become immune from anti-trust laws as part of their 'bail-out.' What could Obama possibly ask in return?
there goes my keyboard and coffee, again !!!!!!!!
WTF?I mean,they're ALL democrats,or is the average Obamanite just that stupid?Scary.
Well played, Bevfrom NYC.
From a Technical Perspective, Hulu beats Amazon, Netflix, and other systems.
Because Hulu requires only Flash plugins and a browser. Meaning Macs, Linux machines, older Windows machines can all access their content.
I can't use Amazon Unbox because I don't have a new Windows machine. Meanwhile, everything on Hulu is accessible for me. On any OS platform. And it's free.
Hulu is a net plus for the consumer. TV for free online. Ad supported. It might not be so good for content sellers, but it's great for viewers.
Probably what the Anti-Trust fight is all about is that some studios that are locked out, or even divisions within them (I'm specifically referring to Time Warner which is legendary for conducting all out corporate civil wars due to weak top leadership) are getting hurt on DVD sales because of Hulu. Why buy, for example, NBC-Universal's "the A-Team" DVDs when you can watch them for free on Hulu.com?
What this is all about, bottom line, is the DVD sellers, either divisions in big media companies like NBC-Universal-GE, or Time-Warner, OR locked out studios (Sony? MGM-UA?) are seeing pressure on DVD sales and want out or renegotiated terms. And are using their good buddy Obama to do it.
If you people knew a thing about anti-trust or technology, nothing in this or the linked blog suggests any kind of legal move at all.
You people are dumb as Hell. Enjoy losing elections for a while. Christ.
Or this is all fabricated? More likely, yes?
If you people knew a thing about anti-trust or technology, nothing in this or the linked blog suggests any kind of legal move at all.
And of course, no actual facts in sight. Just lots of unrelated quotes strung together plus some SOCIALIST!!! whargarbl. Par for the course for conservatives these days.
Hulu is partially owned by News Corp (Fox), NBC and ABC/Disney. CBS is the current network holdout. All the networks stream content for free from their respective sites in addition to Hulu. This political spin is great comedy and distracts from the bottom line of content creators trying to monetize their content using delivery methods respective to key advertising demographics.
He's an ARAB!
yes! let's speculate to give us something to foam in the mouths about! grow a little
Ridiculous. Anti-trust laws have a long history in the country, this isn't anything new. If there is legal application of competition law here, it should be applied. That does not make it socialist. The Sherman Act is one of the foundations of American anti-trust law, and its author, Senator John Sherman, was an Ohio Republican. President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, signed the Act into law. You whack job "Republicans" have polluted your party into a cess pool of cronyism and villany, and now that it's time for adults to come in and clean up your stinking mess your reaction is to whine and cry of socialism. It's your own party's rules from a century ago being followed here!
SOSHULISM IS EVUL.
SO I AGREE WIF YUU.
Not really.
[...] organization which provides a wonderful service at a very low cost? Regulate it away! That’s what might happen to Hulu. I don’t watch much TV, but I’m very glad for Hulu’s existence. I’m [...]
[...] can check out the piece that was cited at TechLiberation.com. The same piece was also cited by Breitbart’s Big Hollywood [...]
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Hulu.com May Be Target of Antitrust Attack bighollywood.breitbart.com/stkarnick/2009/05/11/hulucom-may-be-target-of-antitrust-attack – view page – cached As is sadly the case for all good things, the video website Hulu.com may well come under attack by the government, specifically in the form of antitrust action by the Obama administration. — From the page [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.