Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 2.1 Douglas 2.2 Frankfurter 3 Consequences 4 See also 5 Further reading 6 References

Background[edit] The legal issues originated in the silent era, when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating film companies for potential violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright and complete. Thus specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue. Ultimately, this issue of the studios' allegedly illegal trade practices led to all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice.[2] As the largest studio, Paramount was the primary defendant, but all of the other Big Five (Loew's (MGM), Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, RKO Pictures) and Little Three (Universal Studios, Columbia Pictures, United Artists) were named, as well as numerous subsidiaries and executives from each company.[3] Separate cases were also filed against large independent chains, including the 148-theater Schine.[4] The federal government's case was settled with a consent decree in 1940,[5][6] which allowed the government to reinstate the lawsuit if, by November 1943, it had not seen a satisfactory level of compliance. Among other requirements, the consent decree included the following conditions: The Big Five studios could no longer block-book short film subjects along with feature films (known as one-shot, or full force, block booking); The Big Five studios could continue to block-book features, but the block size would be limited to five films; Blind buying (buying of films by theater districts without seeing films beforehand) would now be outlawed and replaced with "trade showing," special screenings every two weeks at which representatives of all 31 theater districts in the United States could see films before they decided to book a film; and The creation of an administration board to enforce these requirements. The studios did not fully implement the consent decree, and in 1942 with Allied Theatre Owners proposed an alternate "Unity Plan". They proposed booking larger blocks of theatres with the caveat of allowing theaters to reject films.[7] This led to the formation of the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers (SIMPP),[7] which also filed a lawsuit against Paramount Detroit Theaters, the first major lawsuit of producers against exhibitors. The government declined the Unity proposal and reinstated the 1943 lawsuit.[8] The case went to trial on October 8, 1945, one month and six days after the end of World War II.[2] The case was decided in favor of the studios, and the government immediately appealed. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948; their verdict went against the movie studios, forcing all of them to divest themselves of their movie theater chains.[1] This, coupled with the advent of television and the attendant drop in movie ticket sales, brought about a severe slump in the movie business, a slump that would not be reversed until 1972, with the release of The Godfather, the first modern blockbuster. The Paramount decision is a bedrock of corporate antitrust law, and as such is cited in most cases where issues of vertical integration play a prominent role in restricting fair trade.

Decision[edit] The Court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor, affirming much of the consent decree (Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the proceedings). William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion, with Felix Frankfurter dissenting in part, arguing the Court should have left all of the decree intact but its arbitration provisions.[1] Douglas[edit] Douglas's opinion reiterated the facts and history of the case and reviewed the District Court's opinion, agreeing that its conclusion was "incontestable".[1] He considered five different trade practices addressed by the consent decree: Clearances and runs, under which movies were scheduled so they would only be showing at particular theatres at any given time, to avoid competing with another theater's showing; Pooling agreements, the joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios; Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding; Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), and Discrimination against smaller, independent theaters in favor of larger chains. Douglas let stand the District Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement was a restraint of trade, as he agreed they had a legitimate purpose. Pooling agreements and joint ownership, he agreed, were "bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition ... Clearer restraints of trade are difficult to imagine."[1]:149 He allowed, however, that courts could consider how an interest in an exhibitor was acquired and sent some other issues back to the District Court for further inquiry and resolution. He set aside the lower court findings on franchises so that they might be reconsidered from the perspective of allowing competitive bidding. On the block booking question, he rejected the studios' argument that it was necessary to profit from their copyrights: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration".[1]:158 The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely. Frankfurter[edit] Frankfurter took exception to the extent to which his brethren had agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the underlying facts in affirming the consent decree. He pointed to another recent Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States that lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred to by higher courts. Also, he reminded the Court that the District Court had spent fifteen months considering the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of documentary evidence: "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of discretion."[1]:180 He would have modified the District Court decision only to permit the use of arbitration to resolve disputes.

Consequences[edit] Movie studios previously charged low rents to exhibitors because they were owned by the studio. When the studios were forced to sell their theaters, the result was higher rental rates charged to exhibitors (rising from an average of approximately 35% to its current level of approximately 50%), so the studios could recoup their expenses.[citation needed] The inability to block-book an entire year's worth of movies caused studios to be more selective in the movies they made, resulting in higher production costs and dramatically fewer movies made. This caused studios to further raise the rates they charged theaters, since the volume of movies fell.[citation needed] The court orders forcing the separation of motion picture production and exhibition companies are commonly referred to as the Paramount Decrees. Paramount Pictures Inc. was forced to split into two companies: the film company Paramount Pictures Corp. and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters) which merged in 1953 with the American Broadcasting Company.[citation needed] Consequences of the decision include:[citation needed] More independent producers and studios to produce their film product free of major studio interference. The beginning of the end of the old Hollywood studio system and its golden age. The weakening of the (Hays) Production Code, since it saw the rise of independent and "art house" theaters which showed foreign or independent films made outside of its jurisdiction. Following the decision, and with the rise of television, the major studios felt that the loss of their exclusive theatre arrangements would reduce the opportunity to re-release product from their film libraries. Paramount, for example, sold its pre-1950 sound feature film library to MCA, which created EMKA (today Universal Television) to manage this library. Other studios, such as 20th Century Fox or Warner Bros., also sold or leased their classic back catalogs to other companies. By contrast, Walt Disney believed his film library was much more valuable than RKO had estimated it to be; in 1953, he formed a holding company that held rights to work he did prior to 1953 as well as distributed new material from his studio—that company became its own in-house distribution unit, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The growth of television in subsequent years has resulted in these supposedly "worthless" films earning billions of dollars in rentals from television stations and networks.[citation needed]

See also[edit] Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251 (1946), where the Supreme Court held that major Hollywood distributors had engaged in an antitrust conspiracy preventing certain independent movie houses from showing first run films. Buchwald v. Paramount Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc.

Further reading[edit] Gil, Richard. 2015. "Does Vertical Integration Decrease Prices? Evidence from the Paramount Antitrust Case of 1948." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(2): 162-91.

References[edit] ^ a b c d e f g United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948). ^ a b c "The Hollywood Antitrust Case". 2005.  ^ "List of Original Defendants in the Paramount Case". 2005.  ^ "The Theater Monopoly Cases". 2005.  ^ "Part 3: The Consent Decree of 1940". 2005.  ^ "SHOW BUSINESS: Consent Decree". Time. November 11, 1940. Retrieved May 27, 2010.  ^ a b "Independents Protest the United Motion Picture Industry (1942)". 2005.  ^ "The Government Reactivates the Paramount Case". 2005.  Retrieved from ",_Inc.&oldid=817695408" Categories: United States Supreme Court casesUnited States antitrust case lawParamount PicturesAmerican film studiosBusiness ethics casesFilm productionHistory of filmHollywood history and cultureMedia case law1948 in United States case law1940s in American cinema1948 in American cinemaFilm production companies of the United StatesUnited States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson CourtHidden categories: Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameterArticles needing expert attention from November 2008All articles needing expert attentionU.S. Supreme Court cases articles needing expert attentionAll articles with unsourced statementsArticles with unsourced statements from March 2012Articles with unsourced statements from January 2010Articles with unsourced statements from December 2016

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version In other projects Wikisource Languages FrançaisBahasa Indonesia中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 30 December 2017, at 00:55. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.280","walltime":"0.368","ppvisitednodes":{"value":2378,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":40812,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":4849,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":11,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":8,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 324.263 1 -total"," 28.24% 91.584 1 Template:Reflist"," 24.24% 78.609 1 Template:SCOTUSCase"," 20.19% 65.470 6 Template:Cite_web"," 19.37% 62.802 1 Template:Expert_needed"," 18.91% 61.311 1 Template:Infobox"," 18.64% 60.447 6 Template:Citation_needed"," 16.52% 53.581 6 Template:Fix"," 10.87% 35.252 1 Template:Ambox"," 8.63% 27.975 6 Template:Delink"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.132","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3780858,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1332","timestamp":"20180217150804","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":74,"wgHostname":"mw1247"});});

United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc. - Photos and All Basic Informations

United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc. More Links

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court CasesSupreme Court Of The United StatesUnited States ReportsList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334Lawyers' EditionLexisNexisBloomberg BNACCH (company)Block BookingFred M. VinsonHugo BlackStanley Forman ReedFelix FrankfurterWilliam O. DouglasFrank MurphyRobert H. JacksonWiley Blount RutledgeHarold Hitz BurtonSherman Antitrust ActTitle 15 Of The United States CodeWikisourceParamount PicturesList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334United States ReportsSupreme Court Of The United StatesAntitrustDistribution (film)Wikipedia:Citation NeededAntitrustUnited StatesVertical IntegrationStudio SystemFederal Trade CommissionSherman Antitrust ActVertical IntegrationOligopolyUnited States Department Of JusticeMetro-Goldwyn-MayerWarner Bros.20th Century FoxRKO PicturesUniversal StudiosColumbia PicturesUnited ArtistsConsent DecreeMajor Film StudioShort FilmFeature FilmBlock BookingNational Association Of Theatre OwnersSociety Of Independent Motion Picture ProducersWorld War IIU.S. Supreme CourtThe GodfatherBlockbuster (entertainment)Robert H. JacksonWilliam O. DouglasFelix FrankfurterBlock BookingInternational Salt Co. V. United StatesArbitrationWikipedia:Citation NeededWikipedia:Citation NeededParamount PicturesUnited Paramount TheatersAmerican Broadcasting CompanyWikipedia:Citation NeededWikipedia:Citation NeededStudio SystemClassical Hollywood CinemaWill H. HaysProduction CodeArt HouseMCA Inc.EMKA, Ltd.Universal Television20th Century FoxWarner Bros.Walt DisneyWalt Disney Studios Motion PicturesWalt Disney Studios Motion PicturesWikipedia:Citation NeededBigelow V. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.Buchwald V. ParamountLeibovitz V. Paramount Pictures Corp.Paramount Communications, Inc. V. QVC Network, Inc.List Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334United States ReportsHelp:CategoryCategory:United States Supreme Court CasesCategory:United States Antitrust Case LawCategory:Paramount PicturesCategory:American Film StudiosCategory:Business Ethics CasesCategory:Film ProductionCategory:History Of FilmCategory:Hollywood History And CultureCategory:Media Case LawCategory:1948 In United States Case LawCategory:1940s In American CinemaCategory:1948 In American CinemaCategory:Film Production Companies Of The United StatesCategory:United States Supreme Court Cases Of The Vinson CourtCategory:Articles Needing Expert Attention With No Reason Or Talk ParameterCategory:Articles Needing Expert Attention From November 2008Category:All Articles Needing Expert AttentionCategory:U.S. Supreme Court Cases Articles Needing Expert AttentionCategory:All Articles With Unsourced StatementsCategory:Articles With Unsourced Statements From March 2012Category:Articles With Unsourced Statements From January 2010Category:Articles With Unsourced Statements From December 2016Discussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link