Talk:United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Film Libraries?

I'd never before heard "the loss of the studio's rights to their own classic film libraries" was due to the Paramount case. How are the two events linked? --Jeremy Butler 13:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Looking back at the edit history, it sounded like someone was speculating that this decision was a factor in a few studios' sale of rights to their libraries. The speculation was probably that the studios lost money because of this decision and had to sell something. Without citations I'm removing all the speculation about this. Tempshill 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that this case was indeed a cataclyst for film studios losing the rights to their library to others. How else would this case have affected the studios, especially since at that time a new art form was rising--that of television. If video killed the radio star, then television killed the silver screen...albeit briefly, of course. Hiphats 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Clear" it may be ... but without a citation it's pure original research. Daniel Case 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs some expert attention

In addition to the infobox I have polished the article some and added some direct quotes from the decision in a section discussing it. It sounds a little less like it was written by a first-year law student now. But it still needs attention from an expert ... we have an outline of its effect on film production and distribution but, despite saying over and over that it is an important antitrust case (and it is). Someone who can speak to its effect on subsequent jurisprudence more effectively than I is needed. Daniel Case 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

URLs ending in a period are problematic... Wiki should filter these and disallow them. slc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.170.63 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exhibitor Rental Rates, Consequences

The article says that rates charged by studios to exhibitors rose from 35% to 50% without any citations; those numbers would be important to know in terms of antitrust law and oligopoly theory. As a whole, this last section may benefit from being expanded (or it may become too tangential to the article). I will add a tag. Worldsbestusername (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally ?

The following paragraph "bugs" me and I am not sure what the writer was trying to say:

Ultimately, this issue of the studios' unfair trade practices would be the reason behind all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice. Coincidentally, the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers a group led by Mary Pickford, Samuel Goldwyn, Walter Wanger, and others filed a lawsuit against Paramount Detroit Theaters in 1942, the first major lawsuit of producers against exhibitors.

What exactly was the coincidence this paragraph refers to and also why are we talking about an event in 1942 when the next paragraph starts talking about 1940? 66.75.66.240 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Blockbuster claim

This page claims The Godfather to be the first modern blockbuster, yet the page about Blockbusters claim that Jaws was the first. Seems like there should be consistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptousig (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim is of course wrong. The Godfather was a huge and unexpected success, but not a blockbuster. This came with Jaws, by a massive ad campaign and mass booking of the theatre chains.

The sentence should be reworded to "until the success of The Godfather and the following blockbuster era." ReiniUrban (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)