Cultural oligopolies

Let's start by talking about cinema and then we'll get to books. The year 1948 was a busy one in Hollywood: it was the year of the Paramount Decree, which regulated the production-distribution-exhibition chain for decades and dismantled the studio system in the film industry. The studio system was the business model developed by the major studios, known as majors –that is, Warner, Paramount, Universal, etc.–. The fact is that in 1948 this decree arrived as a result of a case against Paramount that was settled in the Supreme Court of the United States. The decree established, among other things, that producers of a film could also distribute it themselves, but they could not own the theaters where it would be shown. We could say that it decreed a kind of separation of powers in the field of cinema. Why? Because what they were doing –vertical integration– was a monopolistic practice that limited and stifled independent cinema. What happened when the antitrust ban came into effect? The number of theaters showing independent films grew, and independent production companies that worked without interference from major studios proliferated (other things too: the relaxation of the Hays self-censorship code, for example). In short, the decree was the beginning of the end of the studio system, the end of the system that put control and power in the hands of the strong, in short, lifelong bully politics. The decree was in effect until 2020 (!), although Disney had already disregarded it before: with streaming platforms, everything has become a bit complicated (Netflix is not a movie theater, but it is a distribution channel, etc.). Once repealed, studios can not only buy movie theaters but it is also legal again what is known as block booking, which is: if you want to have the good movie, you also have to take a couple of duds, which, at least when I studied audiovisual, was the norm in television channels when buying movies "in packages". The result of this practice is evident: the quality of the content is lowered; well, we already know that quality is not usually the objective of big cultural businesses.The dangers of excessive concentration

But this is Llegim and we have to talk about books, right? Well, the fact is that the other day I went into an Abacus store and I was a little horrified. The special display areas (that is, those that are most visible and, therefore, most coveted: the ends of tables, wall displays, etc.) were mostly books from the Abacus Futur group. This, which perhaps should make me happy because I have published a micro-essay with them, made me rather sad, and the Paramount Decree immediately came to mind. Abacus has 44 stores (according to AI: I couldn't find it on their website), and yes, I know, Planeta also has its network of bookstores (La Casa del Llibre, with 75 bookstores) and Anagrama (La Central, only 5). Besides, Planeta and Penguin Random House (PRH) have their own distributor. Planeta's case goes a step further in vertical integration, as it also owns several media outlets. But it seems that in this country nobody really cares about excessive concentration as long as the money flows. The fact is that if you alone produce and distribute and sell and advertise books, perhaps you create unfavorable conditions for independent production. Let's return to the United States for a moment. Five years ago there was an uproar because Penguin Random House threatened to buy Simon & Schuster, one of its great rivals, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit: they feared that the PRH conglomerate, if it went ahead with the acquisition, would have undue influence on the books published in the U.S. and on writers' compensation. Even Stephen King went to testify, and said: “I’m here because I think concentration is bad for competition.” The acquisition was prohibited because the judge considered that the sale would substantially harm competition. Where does free trade end? Where do monopolistic practices begin? All in all, it also makes me think of the associations of writers and translators that for years have been refraining from publishing recommended fees for fear of getting into trouble (after a notorious case with the association of tourist guides). Does what competition laws establish end up constraining (harming?) more the individuals who work alone and have no bargaining power against large groups than the business monsters that monopolize the market?