> Are you really comparing youtube with theatre movies?

Yes I'm comparing youtube to movies. They're direct competitors. My decision on Friday night is often do I go to the movies or do I watch something on YouTube.

> Do you really think a monopoly is going to improve anything for anybody?

They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category.

Sometimes companies go out of business because the economics are so bad (e.g. Spirit). I'm not sure if economics are that bad in film industry, but there are benefits of being a certain size or having a larger catalog. Don't people always complain about having to go to many different streaming services to find a movie?

▲

master_crab 15 hours ago | parent [-]

They don't have a monopoly on any meaningful product category.

By that reasoning I could have a monopoly on peanuts and it’s alright because consumers can choose from hundreds of other foods.

▲

bko 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Birdsong and Golden Peanut together have controlled roughly 80% of U.S. peanut shelling, with Olam holding another 10% or more.

Warner Bros. releases roughly 20-30 wide theatrical films per year, or about 8-12% of all U.S. theatrical releases (counting independent films as well).

Paramount Pictures releases roughly 10-20 wide theatrical films per year, or about 3-7% of all U.S. theatrical releases.

Hope this helps

▲

master_crab 13 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s not good either. It’s the same with poultry, many types of fruit, etc. This just makes the case further.

	▲	dpoloncsak 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not the original commentator, but I think they're suggesting that you're free to compete in these markets, but the margins are too tight until you're working at the scale of these big guys, so nobody does.